\\sx*''^i 


^i  i)M  ^\mhsmi  ^ 


^k 


IRINCETOlSr,  N.  J. 


% 


Presented  by  Mr.  Samuel  Agnew  of  Philadelphia,  Pa. 


BX  9193  .S9  A3  1874  c.l 
Presbyterian  Church  in  the 

U.S.A.  Presbyteries. 
The  trial  of  the  Rev.  David 

Swine  


THE   TRIAL 


OF    THE 


Rev.  David  ^wing, 


BEFORE   THE 


Presbytery  of  Chicago. 


EDITED    BY 


%  C0nimittee  of  t^^  ^mbterg. 


'■^Resolved,  That  a  Committee  be  appointed  for  the  purpose  of  supervising  the  pubhcation  of 
'a  correct  history  of  the  trial  of  Rev.  David  Swing,  before  this  Presbytery,  and  that  said  committee 
'consist  of  Revs.  David  S.  Johnson,  Francis  L.  Patton  and  George  C.  Noyes." 

Resolution  passed  May  20,  1874. 


CHICAGO: 

JANSEN,   McCLURG   &   CO. 

1874. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress  in  the  year  1874,  by 

JANSEN,  McCLURG  &  CO., 
In  the  Office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress,  at  Washington 


Sta*ls-Zfltung  Job  Priating  C*.  Dkmknt,  Gray,  KiTOam  &  Co.. 

P«.NT«8,  «'"=''"  Stenographers, 

Washington  Street  &  5th  Avenae.  Bryan  Block,  LaS^.lle  4  Monroe  Sta. 


PHIITCKTOH 
RECJUN  1881 

THSOLOGICii 


L 


CONTENTS. 


PAGB. 

Organization  of  the  Presbytery,         -_-_-_                .  3 

Prof.  Patton's  Introduction  of  Charges  and  Specifications,            -        -  4 

Majority  Keport  of  Committee  on  Charges  and  Specifications,            -  5 

Minority  Keport  of  Committee  on  Charges  and  Specifications,                -  7 

Charges  and  Specifications,      ----------  8 

Protest  of  Prof.  Patton  and  Others  against  Eeference  of  Charges,  14 

Eeport  op  Committee  on  Protest  of  Prof.  Patton  and  Others,          -        -  15 

Prof.  Swing's  Plea  to  Charges  and  Specifications,        -----  16 

Affidavit  of  Prof.  Patton  in  Relation  to  Continuance  of  Trial,  -        -  20 

Affidavit  of  Daniel  L.  Shorey,  Esq.,            ._-..--  21 

Testimony  of  N.  S.  Bouton,  Esq.,          -......-  22 

Protest  against  Recording  Questions  of  Rev.  Dr.  Swazey,               -        -  23 

Affidavit  of  Prof.  Swing,     ----------  23 

Stipulation  between  Prosecutor  and  Counsel  for  Accused,     -        -        -  23 

Testimony  of  Rev.  Wm.  C.  Young,       --------  24 

Testimony  op  Eev.,  C.  L.  Thompson,         --__-_--  24 

Testimony  of  Rev.  Dr.  R.  "W.  Patterson,           ------  26 

Testimony  of  Rev.  J.  H.  Trowbridge,            _-.---.  29 

Testimomt  op  Rev.  Dr.  Arthur  Swazey,    -------  29 

Testimony  of  "W.  C.  Goudy,  Esq.,    ---------  31 

Testimony  of  H.  G.  Miller,  Esq.,         --- 34 

Testimony  of  Geo.  A.  Shufeldt,  Esq.,     .        r        -----        -  36 

Report  of  Committee  on  Protest  of  Prof.  Patton,          -        -        -        -  42 

Testimony  of  Horace  F.  Waite,  Esq.,             -------  42 

Motion  of  Prop.  Patton  in  relation  to  Mr.  Waite's  Testimony,         -  50 
Testimony  of  Oliver  H.  Lee,  Esq.,           --------50 

Testimony  of  Henry  W.  King,  Esq.,             -------  54 

Protest  against  Entertaining  the  Charges  and  Specifications,      -        -  59 

Testimony  of  H.  A.  Hurlbut,  Esq.,      --------  60 

Letter  from  Prof.  Swing  to  Rev.  Dr.  Junkin,             -----  64 

Report  op  Committee  in  relation  to  Continuance  op  Trial,         -        -  65 

Report  of  Committee  in  relation  to  Mr.  Waite's  Testimony,         -        -  66 

Argument  of  the  Prosecutor,       ---------  67 

Argument  op  the  Prosecutor,  (Continued),          ------  88 

Argument  op  the  Prosecutor,  (Concluded),       ---..-  113 

Argument  op  the  Counsel  for  the  Defendant,           -----  133 


2  CONTENTS. 

PAGE, 

Argument  of  the  Defendant,       -----_._.  133 

Argument  of  the  Counsel  for  the  Defendant,    (CeuTiNUED),            -        -  147 

Argument  of  the  Counsel  for  the  Defendant,  (Concluded),        -        -  154 

Closing  Argument  of  the  Prosecutor,            ----_._  173 

Opinion  of  Eev.  Dr.  E.  W.  Patterson, 187 

Opinion  of  Key.  Dr.  L.  J.  Halsey, 204 

Opinion  of  Key.  Dr.  Arthur  Swazey, 220 

Opinion  of  Key.  Wm.  C.  Young, 226 

Opinion  of  Key.  A.  H.  Dean, 227 

Opinion  of  Key.  J.  M.  Faris,            228 

Opinion  of  Key.  Dr.  W.  M.  Blackburn, -        .  228 

Opinion  of  Key.  Newton  Barrett,           -        - -  233 

Opinion  of  Key.  "Walter  Forsyth,       -        -        -        -        -        ._        .  234 

Opinion  of  Key.  W.  F.  "Wood,          -        --        - 235 

Opinion  of  Key.  E.  R.  Dayis,        --- 236 

Opinion  of  Key.  Dr.  E.  L.  Hup.d,     ---.-._--  236 

Opinion  of  Key.  W.  F.  Brown,      -- --  238 

Opinion  of  Key.  J.  B.  McClure, -_  238 

Opinion  of  Key.  J.  H.  Taylor,      -        -        -        -        -        -        --«  239 

Opinion  of  Key.  Ben.  E.  S.  Ely, -  241 

Opinion  of  Key.  Arthur  Mitchell,     ----.-..  244 

Opinion  of  Key.  J.  H.  Trowbridge,          -----_>_  245 

Opinion  of  Key.  J.  H.  "Walker,            -- 247 

Opinion  of  Key.  J.  T.  Matthews, --  249 

Opinion  of  Key.  C.  L.  Thompson,           ---...__  250 

Opinion  of  Key.  Abbott  E.  Kittredge,           -.._...  254 

Opinion  of  Key.  Glen  "Wood,         ----• 256 

Opinion  of  Key.  L.  H.  Keid,              _-__ 258 

Opinion  of  Key.  Dr.  Jacob  Post, 259 

Opinion  of  Key.  Christian  Wisner,        -- 260 

Opinion  of  Key.  D.  J.  Burrell,             -        -        -        -        -        -        --  261 

Opinion  of  Key.  "Wm.  Brobston, 262 

Opinion  of  Elder  James  Otis,       -.-        - -  263 

Opinion  of  Elder  J.  M.  Horton,      - .._  2G4 

Opinion  of  Elder  O.  H.   Lee,        ----...._  265 

Opinion  of  Elder  J.  Edwards  Fay,        -        -        -■-        -        -        -        -  266 

Opinion  of  Elder  Francis  A.  Riddle,         -_____.  267 

Opinion  of  Elder  S.  B.  "Williams, 270 

Opinion  of  Elder  D.  K.  Holt,       _.. 271 

Opinion  o^  Elder  K.  E.  Barber,      ---------  271 

Opinion  of  Rey.  Wm.  Beecher,     --- _  275 

Opinion  of  Key.  Dr.  A.  D.   Eddy, -  276 

Verdi<;t  of  the  Court,   -----------  278 

Reasons  of  the  Court  for  the  Judgment,              ------  279 

Prof.  Swing's  Letter  to  the  Presbytery",          --_--.  283 

Prof.  Patton's  Reasons  for  Appeal  to  the  Synod,      -----  284 


THE  TRIAL 


htC.JUN  18til 

THEOLOGICAL 


■  oy- 


Eev.  David  Swing. 


The  Prestytery  of  Chicago  met  in  the  Chapel  of  the  Third  Presbyterian  Church, 
Chicago,  111.,  ©n  the  13th  day  of  April,  A.  D.  1874,  at  10:30  o'clock  a.  m.,  and  was  consti- 
tuted with  prayer  by  the  Kev.  Charles  L.  Thompson,  the  last  Moderator  present. 

The  election  of  officers  resulted  as  follows : 

Eev.  Arthur  Mitchell,  Moderator. 
Eev.  E.  W.  Barrett,]  _.  ^,    , 

Rev.  W.  F.  Brown,    j^^-P''^^^^'  C'^^'"^^- 

MEM  BEES  PEESENT. 
ministers. 
Egbert  "W.  Patterson,  D.  D. 
Leroy  J.  Halset,  D.  D. 
Arthur  Swazey,  D.  D. 
Francis  L.  Patton,  D.  D. 
William  C.  Young. 
J.  V.  Downs. 
Amos  H.  Dean. 
J.  M.  Paris. 

"William  M.  Blackburn,  D.  D. 
Newton  Barrett. 


George  C.  Notes. 
"Walter  Forsyth. 
Wilbur  F.  Wood. 
John  Covert, 
Edwin  E.  Davis. 
Edwin  L.  Hurd,  D.  D. 
W.  F.  Brown. 
Edward  Scofield. 
J.  B.  McClure. 
J.  Munroe  Gibson. 
James  H.  Taylor. 
J.  H.  Burns. 
Ben.  E.  S.  Ely. 


Arthur  Mitchell. 
James  H.  Trowbridge. 
John  H.  Walker. 
M.  M.  Wakeman. 
James  McLeod. 
William  E.  Downs. 
James  T.  Matthews. 
P.  L.  Carden. 
Charles  L,  Thompson. 
Christian  Wisner. 
David  J.  Burrell. 
Abbott  E.  Kittredqe. 
Glen  Wood. 
Lewis  H.  Eeid. 
Jacob  Post,  D.  D. 
Edward  H.  Curtis, 
David  Swing. 
David  S.  Johnson. 
William  Brobston. 
James  Harrison. 
Egbert  K.  Wharton. 
Edward  N.  Barrett. 


THE  TKTAL  OF  KEV.  DAVID  SWING. 

COMMISSIOWERS   FROM    THE    CHURCHES. 

James  Otis First  Church,  Chicago. 

John  S.  Gould Second        "  " 

J.  M.  HoRTON Third  "  '< 

Oliver  H.  Lee Fourth        "  " 

Elijah  Smith Fifth  "  " 

J.  Edwards  Fat Eighth        "  " 

TuTTHiLL  King JeflFerson  Ave.  Church,  Chicago. 

George  H.  Fkost Grace  "  " 

Frakcis  a.  Eiddle Ashland  Ave.         "  " 

J.D.Wallace Westminster  "  " 

A.  H.  Merrill Keunion  "  " 

Martin  Lewis Fullerton  Ave.       "  " 

George  H.  Leonard Ninth  "  "     " 

A.  L.  WiNNE Evanston  First      " 

Hassan  A.  Hopkins. Hyde  Park  First  Churfh. 

S.  B.  Williams Highland  Park  First  Church. 

D.  K.  Holt Lake  Forest  "  " 

C.  A.  Spring Manteno  "  '« 

.J.Caldwell Homewood  "  " 

K.  E.  Barber Joliet  Central  Church. 

J.  H.  HuRLBURn Maywood  First     " 

Andrew  Drysdale Englewood  First  Church. 

W.  H.  Dunton Dunton  "  "       , 

W.  P.  Caton Joliet  "  " 

William  Haet Wilmington  "  " 

Henry  Warden Peotone  "  " 

CORRESPONDING   MEMBERS. 

Ansel  D.  Eddy,  D.  D.,  from  the  Presbytery  of  Troy. 

William  Beecher,  from  the  Congregational  Association,  Chicago. 


Inter  alia. 

Professor  Francis  L.  Patton  presented  the 

following  communication  : 

Chicago,  April  13th,  1874. 

To  THE  Keverend  The  Presbytery  of  Chi- 
cago, in  session  in  the  Third  Presbyterian 
Church,  in  the  City  of  Chicago: 

Dear  Brethren  : 

In  the  month  of  August,  1873,  I  published 
in  the  Interior  an  editorial  review  of  Profes- 
sor Swing's  sermon  on  ••Old  Testament 
Inspirations."  It  was  written  in  the  spirit 
of  kindness,  with  no  thought  of  controversy, 
and  with  no  idea  that  it  would  lead  to  a 
judicial  inquiry.  To  the  discussion  between 
Professor  Swing  and  myself  I  need  not  refer, 
except  to  say  that  it  was  the  occasion  of  a 
careful  examination  of  his  theological  views 
as  they  appear  in  his  writings.  I  have  ad- 
verted to  some  of  these  views,  as  you  are 
aware,  in  the  columns  of  the  Interior. 
Indeed,  fidelity  to  the  Chujch  of  which  I  am 


a  minister  required  me  to  do  so.  It  would 
have  given  me  great  pleasure,  as  1  know  it 
would  have  been  a  great  satisfaction  to  many 
others  of  his  ministerial  brethren,  had  this 
discussion  resulted  in  a  vindication  of  Pro- 
fessor Swing  from  any  imputation  of  heresy, 
and  in  showing  that  he  is  a  sincere  believer 
in  the  doctrinal  system  of  that  Church  in 
which  he  has  been  so  honored  and  loved. 
And  since  this  is  not  the  case  it  would  have 
been  more  in  accord  with  my  feelings  if  some 
older  member  of  the  Presbytery  could  have 
assumed  the  responsibility  of  bringing  the 
erroneous  views  of  Professor  Swing  to  your 
notice.  Circumstances,  however,  have  com- 
bined to  impose  this  painful  task  on  me. 
Permit  me,  therefore,  to  call  your  attention 
to  the  accompanying  charges,  with  their 
specifications,  which  I  ask  leave  to  prosecute 
at  your  bar. 

Praying    that    the   Great    Head    of    the 
Church  may  guide  us  in  the  solemn  duties 


MAJOEITY  KEPOPwT. 


which  will  devolve  upon  us  as  a  Court  of 
Jesus  Christ, 

I  am,  very  sincerely  yours, 

in  the  bonds  of  the  Gospel, 
(Signed,)  Francis  L.  Patton. 

Professor  Patton  then  read  the  charges  and 
specifications,  which  were  placed  in  the 
hands  of  the  Judicial  Committee,  consisting 
of  Rev.  R.  W.  Patterson,  D.D.,  Rev.  B.  E.  S. 
Ely,  and  Elder  R.  E.  Barber,  to  report  at  a 
subsequent  meeting. 

[Note. — The  charges  and  specifications  as  amended 
by  the  report  of  the  Judicial  Committee  and  by  Professor 
Patton  will  be  found  on  page  8, — Eds.] 

Adjourned  with  prayer,  to  meet  in  the 
Chapel  of  the  Second  Presbyterian  Church, 
Chicago,  on  Monday,  April  20th  inst.,  at  10^ 
o'clock  A.  M. 


At  the  adjourned  meeting  of  the  Presby- 
tery, held  on  April  20th  inst.,  in  the  Chapel 
of  the  Second  Presbyterian  Church ;  Inter 
alia.  The  Judicial  Committee  to  whom 
were  referred  the  charges  and  specifications 
against  Rev.  David  Swing,  presented  the 
following  reports  which  were  accepted. 

MAJORITY   REPORT. 

The  Judicial  Committee,  to  whom  was 
referred  the  paper  containing  the  charges 
and  specifications  of  Professor  F.  L.  Patton, 
against  Rev.  David  Swing,  report  as  follows  : 

First :  It  appears  to  the  Committee  that  the 
grounds  of  trial  would  be  greatly  simplified, 
and  at  the  same  time  all  the  points  named  by 
the  prosecutor  would  sufficiently  receive  the 
attention  of  the  Presbytery  by  transferring 
to  charge  II.  all  those  specifications  under 
charge  I.  which  pertain  more  immediately  to 
the  alleged  unsoundness  in  the  faith  of  the 
accused,  and  which,  to  say  the  least,  bear 
upon  the  first  charge  only  in  proportion  as 
they  go  to  sustain  the  second.  "We  therefore 
recommend  that  only  specifications  1st,  2nd, 
3rd,  4th,  5th,  6th,  8th,  16th,  and  17th  be  re- 
tained under  charge  first ;  and  that  specifica- 
tions 7th,  9th,  10th,  nth,  12th,  13th,  14th, 
15th,  18th,  19th,  20th,  21st,  22nd,  23rd,  24th, 
and  25th,  under  charge  first,  be  considered 
only  under  charge  second  ;  also,  that  speci- 
fications 1st,  2nd,  3rd,  and  4th,  undercharge 
second  be  retained,  and  that  the  paragraph 
pertaining  to  the  reliance  of  the  prosecutor 
upon  the  specifications  under  charge  first  for 
the  support  of  charge  second  be  stricken  out, 
it  being  understood  that  the  prosecutor  may 


elect  under  v/hich  charge  any  specification 
shall  be  alleged. 

Second  :  Several  of  the  specifications  of 
the  prosecutor  do  not  seem  to  besufiiciently 
definite  and  explicit. 

In  Book  of  Discipline,  Chap.  IV.,  Sec.  5, 
it  is  said  : 

"  In  order  to  render  an  ofTonse  proper  for 
the  cognizance  of  a  judicatorj'  on  this  ground 
(the  ground  of  common  rumor),  the  rumor 
must  specify  some  particular  sin  or  sins." 

In  Book  of  Discipline,  Chap.  IV..  Sec.  8,  we 
find  the  following  rule: 

"  In  exhibiting  charges,  the  times,  places, 
and  circumstances  .should,  if  possible,  be  as- 
certained and  stated,  that  the  accused  may 
have  an  opportunity  to  prove  an  alibi,  or  to 
extenuate  or  alleviate  his  offense."  Also  in 
New  Digest,  page  194,  we  find  the  following 
decisions : 

A.  "  The  Synod  orders  that  all  their  judi- 
catures shall,  for  the  future,  be  particularly 
careful  not  to  receive  or  judge  of  anj'  charges 
but  such  as  shall  be  seasonably  reduced  to  a 
specialty  in  the  complaint  laid  before  them." 
Minutes  1770,  page  406. 

B.  "There  was  a  great  deficiency  in  the 
charges  preferred  against  Mr.  Craighead,  as 
it  relates  to  precision.  All  charges  for  heresy 
should  be  as  definite  as  possible.  The  article 
or  articles  of  faith  impugned  should  be 
specified,  and  the  words  supposed  to  be 
heretical  shown  to  be  in  repugnance  to  these 
articles,  whether  the  reference  is  made  di- 
rectly to  the  scripture  as  a  standard  of  ortho- 
doxy, or  to  the  Confession  of  Faith,  which 
our  Church  holds  to  be  a  summary  of  the 
doctrines  of  Scripture."  Minutes  1824,  page 
121. 

The  principles  mvolved  in  both  these  de- 
cisions seem  to  the  Committee  to  be  applica- 
ble in  relation  to  the  charges,  with  their 
specifications,  in  the  present  case.  We 
therefore  recommend  that  the  charges  be 
returned  to  the  prosecutor,  for  amendment, 
as  follows : 

Specification  1,  under  charge  first,  to  be 
amended  by  striking  out  the  words  "and 
other  doctrines  ;"  also  the  words  "and  other 
sermons,''  and  by  naming  the  particular  ser- 
mons and  passages  in  which  the  words  or 
phrases  complained  of  occur. 

Specification  2,  under  charge  first,  to  be 
amended  by  striking  out  the  words  '•  and 
other  doctrines,"  and  by  stating  mora  speci- 
fically the  grounds  on  which  the  preaching 


THE  TRIAL  OF  REV.  DAVID  SWING. 


of  the  accused  has  been  claimed  to  be  Uni- 
tarian, and  by  whom  such  claim  has  been 
made. 

Specification  4,  charge  first,  to  be  amended 
by  striking  out  the  words  "  and  other  ser- 
mons ;"  also  the  words  "  other  articles  of  the 
Confession  of  Faith,"  and  by  naming  the 
particular  sermons  and  passages  in  which 
the  words  or  expressions  referred  to  may  be 
found. 

Specification  5,  charge  first,  to  be  amended 
by  references  to  particular  discourses,  or  by 
some  other  explicit  definition  of  its  meaning 
and  scope. 

Specification  7,  charge  first,  to  be  amended 
by  striking  out  the  words  "as  well  as  in 
other  sermons,"  and  by  reference  to  the  par- 
ticular passages  of  the  Confession  of  Faith 
which  are  supposed  to  be  impugned  by  the 
passages  complained  of. 

Specification  9,  charge  first,  to  be  amended 
by  a  reference  to  the  particular  article  or  pas- 
sages in  our  Confession  of  Faith  which  the 
teachings  specified  are  supposed  to  contra- 
vene. 

Specification  10,  charge  first,  to  be  amend- 
ed by  a  reference  to  the  article  or  articles  of 
our  Confession  supposed  to  be  impugned. 

Specification  11,  charge  first,  to  be  amend- 
ed by  striking  out  the  words  "  and  in  other  ser- 
mons," and  by  a  reference  to  the  articles  of 
the  Confession  believed  to  be  contravened. 

Specification  12,  charge  first,  to  b«  amend- 
ed by  producing  the  language  referred  to,  and 
quoting  the  portions  of  the  confession  sup- 
posed to  be  impugned. 

Specification  li,  charge  first,  to  be  amend- 
ed by  stating  the  expression  used,  and  by  a 
reference  to  the  article  oi  the  confession  sup- 
posed to  be  impugned. 

Specification  15,  charge  first,  to  be  amend- 
ed by  a  reference  to  the  article  in  the  confeas- 
ion  supposed  to  be  impugned. 

Specification  16,  charge  first,  to  be  amend- 
ed by  striking  out  the  words  "and  in  other 
sermons.'' 

Specification  17,  charge  first,  to  be  amend- 
ed by  reference  to  the  sermons  and  passages  in 
which  the  uses  of  words  complained  of  oc- 
cur. 

Specification  18,  charge  first,  to  be  amena- 
ed  bj'  striking  out  the  words,  "and  in  other 
sermons,"  and  by  naming  the  article  in  the 
confession  supposed  to  be  contravened. 

Specification  19,  cb.arg-^  first,  to  be  amend- 


ed by  naming  the  article  or  articles  of  the 
Confession  of  Faith  supposed  to  bo  contra- 
vened. 

Specification  20,  charge  first,  to  be  amend- 
ed by  striking  out  the  words,  "and  in  other 
sermons,"  and  by  a  reference  to  the  articles 
of  the  Confession  alleged  to  be  impugned. 

Specification  21,  charge  first,  to  be  amend- 
ed by  naming  the  portions  of  the  Confession 
supposed  be  impugned. 

Specification  22,  charge  first,  to  be  amend- 
ed by  referring  to  the  particular  sermojis  and 
passages  had  in  view. 

Specification  23,  charge  first,  to  be  amend- 
ed by  reference  to  the  articles  in  the  Confes- 
sion supposed  to  be  impugned. 

Specification  24  to  be  amended  by  naming 
the  articles  of  the  Confession  alleged  to  be 
contravened. 

Specifi(!ation  25  to  be  amended  by  naming 
the  persons  referred  to. 

Specification  1  under  charge  second,  to  be 
amended  by  stating  as  nearly  as  possible, 
time,  place  and  circumstances. 

In  specification  2,  charge  second,  the  sour- 
ces of  proof  should  be  referred  to. 

Specification  3,  charge  second,  to  be  amend- 
ed by  defining  the  three  doctrines  referred  to. 

Specification  4,  charge  second,  to  be  amend- 
ed by  stating  in  terms  the  point  of  the  specifi- 
cation. 

Third:  Rev.  Dav'.d  Swing  is  named  a.i  a  wit- 
ness to  sustain  the  allegations  against  himself, 
under  charge  second.  But  the  Presbytery 
could  scarcely,  with  propriety,  cite  him  as  a 
witness  in  this  cause,  unless  he  should  freely 
volunteer  his  testimony.  We  suggest,  there- 
fore, that  this  name  be  stricken  out 

Fourth:  The  committee  reconnnend  that 
when  the  charges  and  .specifications  shall  be 
made  sufliciently  definite,  the  trial  proceed  in 
the  following  order  ; 

1.  Warning  to  the  prosecutor.  Book  ol 
Disciplines,  chap.  5,  sec.  7. 

2.  The  accused  to  be  furnished  with  a 
cupy  of  each  charge,  and  the  speci  lioations 
under  it,  and  with  the  names  of  the  witnesses 
to  support  it. 

3.  All  parties  concerned,  with  their  wii- 
nesses,  to  be  cited  to  appear  .-it  an  aujouriied 
meeting,  not  less  than  ten  days  after  the 
charges  are  entertained,  unless  the  parties 
agree  to  proceed  wiih  the  trial  at  an  earlier 
dav. 


MINORITY  RE POUT 


4.  The  trial  shall  proceed  at  the  meeting 
appointed  for  this  purpose,  unless  for  good 
cause  the  case  be  continued  by  the  Presby- 
tery. 

6.  Before  proceeding  with  the  trial  the 
Moderator  shall  charge  the  judicatory  ac- 
cording to  rule  36  in  our  Rules  for  Judicato- 
ries. 

6.  The  charges  to  be  read  to  the  accused. 

7.  Answer  of  the  accused. 

8.  Examination  of  witnesses  to  proceed 
according  to  sec.  8,  cUap.  6,  Bools:  of  Disci- 
pline. 

9.  Comment  upon  the  testimony,  first,  by 
the  accused,  second,  by  the  accused  and  his 
counsel,  and  third,  closing  summai-y  by  the 
accused,  it  being  provided  that  any  new  mat- 
ter introduced  in  the  closing  speech  of  the 
accused  may  be  replied  to  by  the  accused  or 
his  counsel. 

10.  Opinion  of  the  members  of  the  judi- 
catory on  the  several  charges  and  specifica- 
tions, and  finding  of  the  judicatory,  first,  on 
the  several  specifications  under  each  charge, 
and  then  upon  the  charge  itself. 

11.  Judgment  of  the  judicatory. 

12.  Judgment  of  the  judicatory,  if  any, 
on  the  manner  of  conducting  the  prosecution. 

All  of  which  is  respectfully  submitted. 
(Signed.)  R.  "W.  Pattekson, 

R.  E.  Barber, 
minority  report. 

The  undersigned,  a  minority  of  the  Judi- 
o'lal  Committee,  reports :  That  he  dissents 
from  so  much  of  the  majority  report  as  re- 
lates to  a  transfer  of  certain  specifications 
therein  mentioned  from  charge  first  to  charge 
second,  and  also  from  the  recommendation  to 
strike  out  the  words  "  The  specifications  con- 
tained under  and  in  support  of  charge  first 
are  relied  on  as  contained  under  and  in  sup- 
port of  charge  second,"  for  the  following 
reasons : 

(1.)  It  is  the  right  of  the  Prosecutor  to 
arrange  his  pleadings  and  determine  what 
specifications  he  will  rely  upon  in  support  of 
the  several  charges,  leaving  it  for  Presbytery 
to  determine  whether  such  specifications,  if 
supported  by  the  evidence,  sustain  such 
charges  or  not. 

(2.)  Because  the  same  specifications,  if 
pertinent,  may  be  used  in  support  of  either 
or  both  of  the  charges.  It  is  undoubtedly 
true  that  the  same  facts  may  be  alleged  in 
support  of  separate  and  distinct  indictments, 
as,  for  illustration,  where  an  officer  is  charged 


with  malfeasance  in  office,  and  also  for  perjury 
in  an  official  oath.  In  the  case  under  consid- 
eration, charge  first  alleges  unfaithfulness  in 
the  discharge  of  the  ministerial  office.  Charge 
second  alleges  that  the  accused  does  not  re- 
ceive and  accept  the  Confession  of  Paith, 
which  in  accordance  with  the  order  and  dis- 
cipline of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  he  is  by 
virtue  of  his  ordination  vows  and  office 
bound  to  receive  and  accept.  The  same  al- 
legata^ therefore,  which  if  proved  would  sus- 
tain the  first  charge,  would  also  sustain  the 
second. 

(3.)  The  undersigned  is  of  the  opinion 
that  by  virtue  of  the  rule  under  which  the 
Judicial  Committee  is  appointed,  they  are 
not  empowered  to  place  themselves  in  the 
attitude  of  pleading  or  demurring  to  the  com- 
plaint, but  that  this  is  the  right  of  the  ac- 
cused, who  may  for  his  own  protection  and 
defense,  when  the  charges  and  specifications 
are  placed  in  his  hands,  either  demur  or  an- 
swer as  he  may  elect,  subject  to  the  decision 
of  the  Presbytery. 

The  undersigned  is  further  of  the  opinion, 
that  the  interests  of  all  the  parties  to  the 
proceeding,  will  be  best  promoted  by  a  fair 
trial  of  the  case  upon  its  merits,  he  therefore 
recommends,  that  the  Prosecutor  be  allowed 
to  amend  the  specifications  so  that  they  shall 
be  more  definite,  where  the  words  "  and  other 
sermons,"  etc.,  are  used,  and  that  the  case 
proceed  in  the  order  recommended  by  the 
committee. 

The  undersigned  also  objects  to  so  much 
of  said  report  as  refers  to  the  distinction  be- 
tween public  and  private  off"enses,  and  does 
not  think  that  the  case  under  consideration 
comos  under  the  rule  referred  to. 
Respectfully  submitted, 
(Signed.)  Ben  E.  S.  Ely. 

After  discussion,  both  reports  were  recom- 
mitted. The  Committee  subsequently  pre- 
sented the  majority  report  with  paragraph 
first  stricken  out. 

Pending  the  adoption  of  the  report,  the 
charges  and  specifications  were  referred  to 
Professor  Patton,  at  his  request,  for  further 
emendation. 

Adjourned,  with  prayer,  to  meet  on  Tues- 
day, 21st,  at  10:30  o'clock  a.  m. 


Tuesday  Morning,  10:30  o'clock  a.  m. 

The  Presbytery  met  and  was  constituted 
with  prayer. 
Inter  alia : 


THE  TEIAL  OF  KEV.  DAVID  SWING. 


At  the  request  of  Prof.  Swing,  and  with 
the  approval  of  the  Presbytery,  Rev.  George 
C.  Noyes  was  chosen  as  counsel  for  the  ac- 
cused. 

Prof.  Patton  presented  an  amended  copy 
of  the  charges  and  specifications,  which  was 
referred  again  to  the  Judicial  Committee. 
The  amendments  made  by  him  were  accepted, 
and  with  some  verbal  alterations  were  em- 
braced in  their  report,  which  was  then  adopted. 

The  charges  and  specifications  thus  amend- 
ed are  as  follows : 

CHARGE  FIRST. 

Kev.  David  Swing  being  a  minister  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America,  and  a  member  of  the  Presbytery 
of  Chicago,  has  not  been  zealous  and  faith- 
ful in  maintaining  the  truths  of  the  gospel ; 
and  has  not  been  faithful  and  diligent  in  the 
exercise  of  the  public  duties  of  his  oflice  as 
such  minister. 

SPECIFICATION  FIRST. 

He  is  in  the  habit  of  using  equivocal  lan- 
guage in  respect  to  fundamental  doctrines, 
to  the  manifest  injury  of  his  reputation  as  a 
Christian  minister,  and  to  the  injury  of  the 
cause  of  Christ;  that  is  to  say,  in  sundry 
sermons  printed  in  the  Chicago  Pulpit,  and 
in  sundry  other  sermons  printed  in  the  Al- 
liance newspaper,  and  also  in  sundry  other 
sermons  printed  in  a  volume  entitled  "Truths 
for  To-day,"  said  sermons  all  purporting  to 
have  been  preached  by  him,  the  references 
to  one  or  more  of  the  following  doctrines,  to 
wit:  the  person  of  our  Lord,  regeneration, 
salvation  by  Christ,  eternal  punishment,  the 
personality  of  the  Spirit,  the  Trinity,  and 
the  fall  of  man  ;  are  expressed  in  vague  and 
ambiguous  language  ;  that  said  references 
admit  easily  of .  construction  in  accordance 
with  the  theology  of  the  Unitarian  denomi- 
nation ;  that  they  contain  no  distinct  and 
unequivocal  afErmations  of  these  doctrines 
as  they  are  held  by  all  evangelical  churches. 

SPECIFICATION  SECOND. 

That  the  efii'ect  of  these  vague  and  ambig- 
uous statements  has  been  to  cause  grave 
doubts  to  be  entertained  by  some  of  Mr. 
Swing's  ministerial  brethren,  respecting  his 
position  in  relation  to  the  aforesaid  doc- 
trines, that  leading  Unitarian  ministers,  to 
wit:  Rev.  R.  Laird  Collier  and  Rev.  J. 
Minot  Savage,  have  afiirmed  that  his  preach- 
ing is  substantially  Unitarian ;  that  Mr. 
Swing,  knowing  that  he  is  claimed  by  Uni- 


tarians as  in  substantial  accord  with  them, 
and  of  the  doubts  existing  as  aforesaid,  and 
moreover,  having  his  attention  called  in 
private  interviews  to  the  ambiguity  and 
vagueness  of  his  phraseology,  has  neglected 
to  preach  the  doctrine  of  our  Lord's  Deity, 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  of  Justification 
by  Faith  alone,  and  of  the  eternal  punish- 
ment of  the  wicked. 

SPECIFICATION  THIRD. 

He  has  manifested  a  culpable  disregard  of 
the  essential  doctrines  of  Christianity  by 
giving  the  weight  of  his  influence  to  the 
Unitarian  denomination,  and  by  the  un- 
worthy and  extravagant  laudation  in  the 
pulpit,  and  through  the  press  of  John  Stuart 
Mill,  a  man  who  was  known  not  to  have 
believed  in  the  Christian  religion ;  that 
is  to  say,  that  some  time  in  the  past  winter, 
and  during  successive  days  he  was  advertized 
to  lecture  in  the  city  of  Chicago,  in  aid  of  a 
Unitarian  chapel  and  that  he  did  lecture  in 
aid  of  said  chapel,  and  in  doing  so  aided  in 
the  promulgation  of  the  heresy  which  denies 
the  Deity  of  our  blessed  Lord  ;  that  in  an 
article  written  by  him,  and  published  over 
bis  name  in  the  periodical  called  The  Lake- 
side Monthly,  bearing  date,  October,  1873, 
and  entitled  "The  Chicago  of  the  Christian," 
a  passage  occurs,  which,  taken  in  its  plain 
and  obvious  sense,  teaches  that  Robert  Col- 
lyer,  a  Unitarian  minister,  and  Robert  Pat- 
terson, a  Presbyterian  minister,  preach  sub- 
stantially the  same  gospel,  that  the  gospel, 
meaning  the  Christian  religion,  is  mutable, 
and  may  be  modified  by  circumstances  of 
time  and  place,  that  the  "local  gospel," 
meaning  the  gospel  of  Chicago,  is  a  "mode 
of  virtue"  rather  than  a  "jumble  of  doc- 
trines," and  moreover,  that  on  the  Sabbath 
following  the  death  of  John  Stuart  Mill,  a 
well-known  Atheist,  Mr.  Swing  preached  a 
sermon  in  reference  to  Mr.  Mill,  the  natural 
eflect  of  which  would  be  to  mislead  and  injure 
his  hearers  by  producing  in  them  a  false 
charity  for  fundamental  error. 

SPECIFICATION  FOUKTH. 

In  the  sermons  aforesaid  language  is  em- 
ployed which  is  derogatory  to  the  standards 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  or  to  one  or  more 
of  the  doctrines  of  said  Church,  and  which 
is  calculated  to  foster  indifference  to  truth, 
and  to  produce  contempt  for  the  doctrines 
of  our  Church :  that  is  to  say,  that  he  has  at 
sundry  times  spoken  disparagingly  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity,   Predestination,  the 


CHARGES  AND  SPECIFICATIONS. 


Person  of  Christ,  Baptism,  the  Christian 
Ministry,  and  Vicarious  Sacrifice.  That  by 
insinuation,  ridicule,  irony,  and  misrepre- 
sentation, he  has  referred  to  the  doctrines  of 
our  Church  in  such  a  way  as  to  show  that  he 
does  not  value  them;  and  that  by  placing 
in  juxtaposition  true  doctrines  and  false 
minor  points  in  theology  and  cardinal  doc- 
trines of  evangelical  religion,  he  has  treated 
some  of  the  most  precious  doctrines  of  our 
religion  with  contempt.  The  reference  is 
particularly  to  sermons  entitled  "Soul  Cul- 
ture," "St.  Paul  and  the  Golden  Age," 
"Salvation  and  Morality,"  "Value  of  Yester- 
day," "Influence  of  Democracy  on  Christian 
Doctrine,"  "Variation  of  Moral  Motive," 
"A  Religion  of  Words,"  all  published  in  the 
Chicago  Pulpit,  and  to  "Religious  Tolera- 
tion," "Christianity  and  Dogma,"  "Faith," 
"The  Great  Debate,"  "Christianity  as  a 
Civilization,"  published  in  "Truths  for  To- 
Day,"  and  in  the  sermons  entitled  "The 
Decline  of  Vice,"  "Christianity  a  Life," 
and  a  "Missionary  Religion,"  published  in 
the  Alliance  newspaper.  The  following  pas- 
sage illustrates  the  allegation  :  "Over  the 
idea  that  two  and  two  make  four  no  blood 
has  been  shed  ;  but  over  the  insinuation  that 
three  may  be  one,  or  one  three,  there  has 
often  been  a  demand  for  external  influence 
to  brace  up  for  the  work  the  frail  logical 
faculty.  It  is  probable  that  no  man  has  ever 
been  put  to  death  for  heresy  regarding  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount.  Its  declarations 
demand  no  tortures  to  aid  human  faith  ;  but 
when  a  church  oomes  along  with  its  "legit- 
imacy," or  with  its  Five  Points,  or  with  its 
Prayer  Book,  or  its  Infant  Baptism,  or  Eter- 
nal Procession  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  then  comes 
the  demand  for  the  rack  and  the  stake  to 
make  up  in  terrorism  what  is  wanting  in 
evidence." 

SrECinCATION  FIFTH. 

Being  a  minister  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  and  preaching  regularly  to  the 
Fourth  Presbyterian  Church  of  this  city,  he 
has  omitted  to  preach  in  his  sermons  the 
doctrines  commonly  known  as  evangelical — 
that  is  to  say,  in  particular,  he  omits  to 
preach  or  teach  one  or  more  of  the  doctrines 
indicated  in  the  following  statements  of 
Scripture,  namely:  that  Christ  is  a  "propiti- 
ation for  our  sins,"  that  we  have  "redemp- 
tion through  His  blood,"  that  we  are  "justi- 
fied by  faith"  that  "there  is  no  other  name 


under  heaven  given  among  men  whereby  wo 
may  be  saved."  That  Jesus  is  "equal  with 
God,"  and  is  "God  manifest  in  the  flesh  ?  " 
that  "all  Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration 
of  God,"  and  that  "the  wicked  shall  go  away 
into  everlasting  punishment." 

SPECIFICATION  SIXTH. 

He  declares  that  the  value  of  a  dooirine  is 
measured  by  the  ability  of  men  to  verify  it 
in  their  experience,  in  illustrating  this  state- 
ment, he  has  spoken  lightly  of  important 
doctrines  of  the  Bible  :  that  is  to  say,  that  in 
a  sermon  entitled  "Christianity  and  Dogma," 
printed  in  the  volume  called  "Truths  for  To- 
Day,"  the  following  and  similar  language  is 
used:  "The  doctrines  of  Christianity  are 
those  which  may  be  tried  by  the  human 
heart."  "The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  as  for- 
mally stated  cannot  be  experienced.  Man  has 
not  the  power  to  taste  the  oneness  of  three,  nor 
the  threeness  of  one,  and  see  that  it  is  'good.'" 
"If  you,  my  friend,  are  giving  your  daily 
thought  to  the  facts  of  Christianity,  and  are 
standing  bewildered  to-day  amid  the  state- 
ments of  science  and  Genesis  about  earth, 
or  its  swarms  of  life,  recall  the  truth  that 
your  soul  cannot  taste  any  theory  of  man's 
origin — cannot  experience  the  origin  of  man, 
whatever  that  origin  may  have  been  " 

SPECIFICATION   SKA''ENTH. 

In  the  sermons  entitled  respectively  "  Old 
Testament  Inspiration  "  and  "  The  Value  of 
Yesterday,"  published  in  the  Chicocjo  Pulpit, 
and  in  the  sermons  entitled  "Righteousness," 
"  Faith,"  "The  Great  Debate,"  printed  in 
"  Truths  for  To-day  ;"  also  in  the  "Decline 
of  Vice,"  printed  in  the  Alliance^  he  has  used 
language  which,  taken  in  its  plain  and 
obvious  sense,  inculcates  a  phase  of  the  doc- 
trine commonly  known  as  "  Evolution  "  or 
"  Development :"  that  is  to  say,  he  uses  the 
following  and  similar  language  :  "  Low  idola- 
try of  primitive  man,"  meaning  Adam.  "  The 
Bible  has  not  made  religion,  but  religion  and 
righteousness  have  made  the  Bible.'"  "Chris- 
tianity is  not  forced  upon  us  ;  our  own 
nature  has  forced  it  up  out  of  the  spirit's  rich 
depths."  "  The  Mosaic  Economy  was  noth- 
ing else  but  a  progress ;  earth  had  come  to 
Polytheism,  to  Pantheism,  to  Feticism.  It 
was  the  Hebrew  philosoph  j^  and  its  immediate 
result  Christianity,  which  swept  away  the 
iron  Jupiter."  "This  multitude  measures  a 
great  revelation  of  God  above  that  day  when 
earth  possessed  but  one  man  or  family,  and 


10 


THE  TRIAL  OF  REV.  DAVID  SWING. 


that  one  without  language  and  without 
learning  and  without  virtue."  "  In  the  first 
human  being  God  could  no  more  display  His 
perfections  than  a  musician  like  Mozart 
could  unfold  his  genius  to  an  infant,  or  to  a 
South  Sea  Islander."  These  passages  con- 
flict with  the  Confession  of  Faith,  chapter  8, 
sec.  1  ;  chapter  7,  sees.  3,  4,  5  ;  chapter  4, 
sec.  2. 

SPECIFICATION  EIGHTH. 

In  a  sermon  entitled  "  Influence  of  Demo- 
cracy on  Christian  Doctrine,"  published  in 
the  Chicago  Pulpit,  and  preached  April  20, 
1873,  he  has  made  false  and  dangerous  state- 
ments regarding  the  standard  of  faith  and 
practice  ;  that  is  to  say  :  he  used  the  following 
and  similar  language  :  "When  we  come  to 
moral  ideas  we  are  compelled  to  do  without 
any  standards."  "  You  may,  my  friends,  at 
your  leisure,  seek  and  find  further  instances 
of  this  modification  of  Christian  belief  by  the 
new  surroundings  of  government.  Christian 
customs  will  also  be  modified  along  with  the 
creed."  "In  this  casting  off"  of  old  gar- 
ments, it  no  more  cheerfully  throws  away 
the  inconceivable  of  Christianity  than 
the  inconceivable  of  Kant  and  Spinoza." 
"  In  this  abandonment  there  is  no  charge  of 
falsehood  cast  upon  the  old  mysteries  ;  they 
may  or  may  not  be  true  ;  there  is  only  a 
passing  them  by  as  not  being  in  the  line  of 
the  current  wish  or  taste  ;  raiment  for  a  past 
age,  perhaps  for  a  future,  but  not  acceptable 
for  the  present. 

SPECIFICATION   NINTH. 

He  has  given  his  approval,  in  the  pulpit, 
to  the  doctrine  commonly  known  as  Sabel- 
liunism,  or  a  Modal  Trinity,  and  has  spoken 
slightingly  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  as 
taught  in  the  standards  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  (Confession  of  Faith,  chapter  2, 
sec.  3)  that  is  to  say,  in  the  volume  called 
"Truths  for  To-day,"  he  uses  the  following 
and  similar  language:  "  But  the  moment  He 
(Jesus)  has  uttered  our  text, — that  '  Those 
which  man  can  subject  to  experience  are  the 
doctrines  that  be  of  God,'  reason  rises  up  and 
unites  its  voice  with  that  of  simple  authority. 
The  doctrines  of  Christianity  are  those  which 
may  be  tried  by  the  human  heart."  "  The 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  as  formally  stated, 
cannot  be  experienced.  Man  has  not  the 
power  to  taste  the  threeness  of  one,  nor  the 
oneness  of  three,  and  see  that  it  is  'good.'" 
"Hence,  Christianity  bears  readily  the  idea 


of  three  offices,  and  permits  the  one  God  to 
appear  in  Father,  or  in  Son,  or  in  Spirit." 

SPECIFICATION   TENTH. 

In  the  sermons  entitled,  respectively,  "  The 
Great  Debate,"  and  "  Positive,  Religion", 
printed  in  the  volume  called  "  Truths  for 
To-day,"  false  and  dangerous  statements  are 
made  respecting  our  knowledge  regarding 
the  Being  and  attributes  of  God,  that  is  to 
say,  that  the  following  and  similar  language 
is  used  :  "  When  Logic  informs  you  and  me 
that  God  is  a  law,  or  a  wide-spread  blind 
agency,  let  us  not  be  deceived,  for  all  it  has 
done  is  to  take  away  our  God."  "  Perfect 
assurance  is  just  as  impossible  to  a  free  re- 
ligionist or  atheist  as  it  is  to  the  Christian. 
Remembering,  therefore,  that  there  is  no 
moral  idea  of  beauty  or  love  or  soul  that  may 
not  be  denied,  and  remembering,  too,  that 
the  assurance  that  there  is  a  God  is  always 
logically  equal  to  the  oppo-belief.''  "  We 
know  not  what  nor  where  is  our  God,  our 
heaven."  (Confession  of  Faith,  chapter  2, 
sec.  1,  and  chapter  2.) 

SPECIFICATION  ELEVENTH. 

In  a  sermon  entitled,  "A  Religion  of 
Words,"  published  in  the  Chicago  Pulpit, 
and  in  the  sermon  entitled  Religious  Tol- 
eration, he  uses  language  in  regard  to  the 
Sacrament  of  Baptism  inconsistent  with  the 
doctrina,l  standards  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  (see  Confession  of  Faith,  chap,  xxvii. 
§  1,  2,  3,  4,  and  chap,  xxviii.  §  1,  §  5)  ;  that 
is  to  say,  he  speaks  flippantly  of  infant  bap- 
tism, and,  in  the  sermon  above  mentioned, 
used  the  following  words :  "The  nations 
await,  with  tears  of  past  sorrow,  a  religion, 
that  shall,  indeed  baptize  men  and  children, 
either  or  both,  but  counting  this  as  only  a 
beautiful  form,  shall  take  the  souls  of  men 
into  the  atmosphere  of  Jesus,"  etc. 

SPECIFICATION   TWELFTH. 

He  had  used  language  in  respect  to  Pene- 
lope and  Socrates,  which  is  unwarrantable 
and  contrary  to  the  teachings  of  the  Confes- 
sion of  Faith,  chap.  x.  ^  4,  that  is  to  say, 
that  in  his  sermon,  entitled  "Soul  Culture," 
the  following  passage  occurs:  "  There  is  no 
doubt  the  notorious  Catharine  II.  held  more 
truth  and  better  truth  than  was  known  to  all 
classic  Greece — held  to  a  belief  in  a  Saviour, 
of  whose  glory  that  gifted  knew  nought ; 
yet,  such  the  grandeur  of  soul  above  mind 
that  I  doubt  not  that  Queen  Penelope  of  the 
dark  land  and  the  doubting  Socrates  have 


SPECIFICATIONS. 


Ill 


received  at  Heaven's  gate  a  sweeter  welcome 
sung  of  angels  than  greeted  the  ear  of  Kus- 
sia's  brilliant  but  false  lived  queen." 

SPECIFICATION    THIRTEENTH. 

In  a  sermon  printed  on  or  about  15th  Sep- 
tember, 1872,  from  11  Peter,  3,  9,  he  made 
use  of  loose  and  unguarded  language,  re- 
specting the  Providence  of  God. 

SPECIFICATION    FOURTEENTH. 

In  a  sermon  preached  at  the  installation  of 
Rev.  Arthur  Swazey,  D.  D.,  as  pastor  of  the 
Ashland  Avenue  Presbyterian  Church,  Chi- 
cago, and  previously  preached  about  January, 
1872,  in  Standard  Hall,  Chicago,  he  repu- 
diated the  idea  of  a  call  to  the  ministry,  and 
taught  that  the  office  of  the  ministry,  like  the 
profession  of  law  and  medicine,  is  the  natural 
outgrowth  of  circumstances ;  that  is  to  say, 
he  said  in  substance,  that  the  merchant  is 
called  to  his  business,  the  lawyer  to  his  pro- 
fession, just  as  much  as  the  minister  to  the 
duties  of  his  office, — and  other  statements  con- 
tradicting the  teaching  of  the  Confession  of 
Faith  in  chap,  xxv  §3,  and  Form  of  Govern- 
ment, chap,  i,  ^3.  Confession  of  Faith,  chap. 
XXX,  ^1  and  2.  Confession  of  Faith,  chap, 
xxvii,  ^4  :  chap,  vii,  gl :  chap,  xxix,  |3, 

SPECIFICATION  FIFTEENTH. 

He  has  made  false  and  misleading  state- 
ments respecting  the  Old  Testament  sacri- 
fices ;  that  is  to  say,  that  in  the  sermon  enti- 
tled "A  Eeligion  of  Words,"  he  speaks  of 
the  aforesaid  sacrifices  as  "gift  worship," 
and  uses  the  following  and  similar  language : 
"Gifts  to  the  Deity,  were  the  infant  creepings 
of  religion  ;  the  shadow  of  a  coming  reality, 
the  manifesting  of  an  incipient  love  that  did 
not  know  how  to  express  itself.  Not  know- 
ing that  what  God  most  wished  was  a  pure 
heart  in  His  children,  they  loaded  His  tem- 
ples with  their  jewels  and  raiment,  and 
His  altars  with  their  lambs."  See  Confes- 
sion of  Faith,  chaj  ter  7,  sec.  5  ;  chapter  8, 
sec.  4;  chapter  14,  sec.  3.  Larger  Cate- 
chism, art.  34. 

SPECIFICATION  SIXTEENTH. 

In  the  sermons  aforesaid,  religion  is  rep- 
resented in  the  form  of  a  mysticism,  which 
undervalues  the  evidences  of  revealed  relig- 
ion, and  is  indifferent  to  the  distinguishing 
doctrines  of  Christianity ;  that  is  to  say, 
that  in  the  sermon  preached  on  the  occasion 
of  the  death  of  John  Stuart  Mill,  above  re- 
ferred to,  and  in  the  sermon  called  "Posi- 
tive Eeligion,"  printed  in  "Truths  for  To- 


day;"  also  in  the  sermon  entitled  "The  De- 
cline of  Vice,"  printed  in  the  Alliance  news- 
paper ;  and  in  the  volume  called  "Truths  for 
To-day,''  the  following  and  similar  language 
occurs  :  "That  Mr.  Mill  did  not  accept  the 
orthodox  creed  is  not  what  a  liberal  world 
need  regret  the  most,  but  that  he  revealed 
little  of  the  religious  sentiment  and  hope  is 
what  we  must  confess  to  be  a  shadow  upon 
his  memory."  "Victor  Cousin,  of  France, 
was  the  rival  of  Stuart  Mill  in  wisdom,  in 
genius,  in  intellect;  and  so  Guizot.  These 
three  were  similar,  and  strikingly  great.  But 
the  two  latter  possessed  the  power  of  senti- 
ment. That  golden  atmosphere  of  love  and 
hope  that  hangs  around  religion  enveloped 
Victor  Cousin  in  its  life-long  folds.  Setting 
out  from  the  same  points  of  thought,  Cousin 
always  came  up  to  God  and  heaven,  and  Mr. 
Mill  to  the  practical  of  this  life;  to  the  hap- 
piness of  man  here,  and  then  paused." 

SPECIFICATION  SEVENTEENTH. 

In  the  sermons  aforesaid  he  employs  the 
words  used  to  indicate  the  doctrines  of  the 
Bible  in  an  unscriptural  sense,  and  in  a  sense 
diflerent  from  that  in  which  they  are  used  by 
the  evangelical  churches  in  general,  and  the 
Presbyterian  Church  in  particular  ;  that  is 
to  say,  that  he  so  uses  such  words  as  "regen- 
eration," "conversion,"  "repentance,"'  "Di- 
vine," "justification,"  "new  heart,"  "salva- 
tion," "Saviour." 

SPECIFICATION  EIGHTEENTH. 

He,  in  effect,  denies  the  judicial  nature  of 
the  condemnation  of  the  lost,  as  taught  in 
the  Confession  of  Faith,  chapter  4,  sec.  4, 
chapter  33.  Shorter  Catechism,  chapter  19, 
art.  84;  that  is  to  say,  in  the  sermons  enti- 
tled "Faith  and  Christianity  and  Dogma," 
printed  in  the  volume  called  "Truths  for  To- 
day," he  uses  the  following  language  :  "The 
least  trace  of  infidelity  lessens  the  activity  ; 
unbelief  brings  all  to  a  halt,  and  damns  the 
soul,  not  by  arbitrary  decree,  but  by  actual- 
ly arresting  the  best  flow  of  its  life.  Unbe- 
lief is  not  an  arbitrary  but  a  natural  damna- 
tion." 

SPECIFICATION  NINETEENTH. 

He  teaches  that  faith  saves  because  it  leads 
to  holy  life  ;  that  salvation  by  faith  is  not 
peculiar  to  Christianity  ;  that  salvation  is  a 
matter  of  degree,  and  that  the  supremacy  of 
faith  in  salvation  arises  out  of  the  fact  that 
it  goes  further  than  other  Christian  graces 
towards  making  men  holy,  that  is  to  say,  in 


12 


THE  TRIAL  OF  EEV.  DAVID  SWING. 


the  sermons  entitled  "Faith,"  printed  in  the 
volume  called  "Truths  for  To-day,"  the  fol- 
lowing and  similar  language  occurs :  "Faith 
in  Christ  is  a  rich  soil,  out  of  which  Kight- 
eousness  is  a  gorgeous  hloom."  "If  there 
were  enough  truth — truth  of  morals  and  re- 
demption in  the  Mohammedan  or  Buddhist 
system  to  save  the  soul — faith  would  be 
the  law  of  salvation  within  these  systems." 
"Salvation  by  faith  is  not  a  creation  or 
invention  of  the  New  Testament,  but  is  a 
law  that  has  pushed  its  way  up  into  the 
New  Testament  from  the  realm  without." 
"No  other  grace  could  so  save  the  soul. 
Charity  may  do  much.  It  softens  the  heart, 
and  drags  along  a  train  of  virtues  ;  but  it  is 
limited  by  the  horizon  of  this  life.  Voltaire 
and  Paine  were  both  beautiful  in  charity 
toward  the  poor,  but  that  virtue  seems  inad- 
equate ;  and  of  the  highest  form  of  charity, 
a  religious  faith  is  the  best  cause,  and  hence 
charity  must  take  the  place,  not  of  a  leader, 
but  of  one  that  is  led.  Even  penitence  is  a 
poor  'saving  grace,'  compared  with  faith." 
See  Confession  of  Faith,  chapters  11  and  16. 

SPECIFICATION    TWENTIETH. 

He  teaches  that  men  are  saved  by  works ; 
that  is  to  say,  in  the  sermons  entitled  "Good 
Works,"  "The  Value  of  Yesterday,"  "A 
Eeligion  of  "Words,"  the  following  and  sim- 
ilar language  occurs  :  "There  is  nothing  so- 
ciety so  much  needs  to-day  as  not  Divine 
righteousness  but  human  righteousness.  " 
"Heaven  is  a  height  to  which  men  climb  on 
the  deeds  of  this  life."  "Coming  to  the 
grave  he  only  can  look  forward  with  joy 
who  can  sweetly  look  back."  "The  good 
deeds  of  yesterday,  the  good  deeds  of  to-day, 
the  perfect  goodness  of  to-morrow,  a  deep 
love  for  man,  a  consciousness  of  the  presence 
of  God,  will  fill  the  whole  place  with  a  no- 
bleness and  happiness  to  which  earth  has 
thus  far  been  willingly  a  stranger.  This 
will  be  a  salvation,  and  Christ  will  be  a 
Saviour."  Confession  of  Faith,  chapter  11, 
6ec.  14. 

SPECIFICATION    TWENTY-FIEST. 

He  denies  the  doctrine  of  Justification  by 
Faith,  as  held  by  the  Reformed  Churches, 
and  taught  in  the  Westminster  Confession  of 
Faith,  chapter  11 ;  that  is  to  say,  in  the  ser- 
mon entitled  "Good  Works,"  he  uses  the 
following  and  similar  language :  "Works, 
that  is,  results — a  new  life— are  the  destiny 
of  faith,  the  reason  of  its  wonderful  play  of 
light  on  the  religious  horizon.     Faith,  as  a 


belief  and  a   friendship,  is  good  so  far  as  it 
bears  the  soul  to  this  moral  perfection." 

SPECIFICATION  TWENTY-SECOND. 

In  the  sermon  aforesaid  misrepresents  the 
doctrinal  views  of  those  who  believe  in  Jus- 
tification by  Faith  alone,  by  using  language 
which  is  calculated  to  produce  the  impres- 
sion that  those  who  hold  the  doctrine  afore- 
said, divorce  faith  from  morals,  and  believe 
that  men  may  be  saved  by  an  intellectual  as- 
sent to  a  creed  without  regard  to  personal 
character. 

SPECIFICATION  TWENTT-THIRB. 

He  has  spoken  of  the  Bible,  or  portions 
thereof,  in  terms  which  involve  a  denial  of 
its  plenary  inspiration  as  held  in  the  Presby- 
terian Church  and  taught  in  the  Confession 
of  Faith,  chapter  one,  and  also  in  the  follow- 
ing passages  of  Scripture  :  2  Timothy,  3  16 ; 
Acts  1  16,  20 ;  that  is  to  say,  in  a  sermon 
entitled  "Old  Testament  Inspiration,''  and  in 
sundry  articles  written  by  him  and  printed 
in  the  Interior  newspaper,  he  refers  to  the 
109th  psalm  as  a  "battle-song,"  as  the  "good 
of  an  hour,"  "a  revenge ;"  and  in  an  article 
printed  in  the  Interior  September  18,  1873, 
he  uses  the  following  and  similar  language: 
"The  prominence  given  to  the  109th  psalm 
in  my  remarks,  arises  only  from  the  fact 
that  it  has  long  been  a  public  test  of  the  val- 
ue of  any  given  theory  of  inspiration.  This 
is  one  of  the  places  at  which  the  rational 
world  asks  us  to  pause  and  apply  our  abund- 
ant and  boastful  words.  Most  of  the  young 
men,  even  in  the  Presbyterian  Church,  know 
what  the  historian  Froude  said  of  this  psalm 
a  few  years  since:  'Those  who  accept  the 
109th  psalm  as  the  word  of  God  are  already 
far  on  their  way  toward  auto-  da-fes  and  mas- 
sacres of  St.  Bartholomew,'  and  while  they 
may,  for  a  time,  reject  these  words,  they  will 
soon  demand  a  theory  of  inspiration  very 
difl'erent  from  the  indefinite  admiration  of 
the  past. 

SPECIFICATION  TWENTY-FOURTU. 

H*  has  spoken  of  the  Bible,  or  portions 
thereof,  in  terms  which  involve  a  denial  of 
its  infallibility,  and  Avhich  tend  to  shake  the 
confidence  of  men  in  its  divine  authority — 
as  taught  in  Confession  of  Faith,  Chapter  I., 
that  is  to  say,  in  the  sermon  on  "  Old  Testa- 
ment Inspiration,"  the  following  passage 
occurs:  "There  is,  it  seems  to  me,  no  other 
conceivable  method  of  treating  the  Old  Tes- 
tament than  that  found  in  the  word  electicism. 


SPECIFICATIONS. 


13 


We  must  seek  out  its  permanent  truths, 
follow  its  central  ideas,  and  love  them  the 
more  because  they  were  eliminated  from  the 
barbaric  ages  with  so  much  sorrow  and  blood- 
shed." Moreover,  in  the  article  in  The  In- 
terior &\)0\q  mentioned,  he  says  that  "  Christ 
declared  the  Ten  Commandments  defective  ;" 
also,  in  an  article  written  by  him,  and  printed 
in  The  Interior,  September  4,  1873,  he  speaks 
of  "  battles  " — meaning  the  battles  of  the 
Israelites — engaged  in  with  the  approval  and 
by  the  command  of  Jehovah,  "  that  sur- 
passed in  cruelty  those  of  Julius  Caesar." 
He  also  teaches  that  the  Mosaic  legislation 
was  cruel  and  unjust,  and  uses  the  following 
and  similar  language  ;  "  If  David's  personal 
character  had  been  preceded  by  generations 
■which  dripped  in  blood,  by  generations  which 
punished  over  thirty  forms  of  offences  with 
death,  by  generations  which  slew  women  and 
children,  by  generations  which  punished  im- 
purity by  a  fine  of  one  animal  from  the  flock  ; 
and,  if  reared  in  such  an  atmosphere,  David 
sent  Uriah  to  the  front  and  thus  secured 
Uriah's  beauteous  wife,  one  certainly  should 
not  attribute  this  immorality  to  any  lack  of 
revelation,  indeed,  but  rather  to  an  absence 
of  that  quality  of  revelation  found  after- 
wards in  the  morals  of  Jesus."  Moreover, 
in  an  article  written  by  him  and  printed  in 
the  periodical  known  as  the  Sunday  School 
Teacher,  and  bearing  date  July,  1873,  he  uses 
the  following  and  similar  language.  And, 
moreover,  in  a  sermon  entitled  "  St.  John," 
printed  in  the  volume  called  "  Truths  for 
To-Day,"  he  uses  the  following  and  similar 
language :  "  There  are  no  prophecies  of  literal 
events  in  the  Apocalypse  any  more  than  there 
is  in  Tasso,  or  Tennyson,  or  "Whittier."  *  * 
*'  For  us  to  inquire  the  meaning  of  the  seven 
seals,  and  to  enquire  whether  Kome  be  not 
the  '  Babylon,'  would  be  for  us  to  seek  the 

*  Deserted    Village '   of    Goldsmith,   or    the 

*  Beulah  Land  '  of  John  Bunyan." 

The  foregoing  charge  with  its  specifications 
may  be  proved  by  the  printed  sermons  and 
articles  of  Mr,  Swing  as  above  mentioned, 
and  by  the  testimony  of  the  following  wit- 
nesses : 

Oliver  H.  Lee,  Horace  A.  Hurlburt,  Wil- 
liam C.  Gray,  Charles  M.  Howe,  Leonard 
Swett,  William  C.  Ewing,  Mr.  McClurg,  (of 
Jahsen,  McClurg,)  Messrs.  "Carpenter  and 
Sheldon,"  Eev.  W.  C.  Young,  Kev.  J.  B.  Mc- 
Clure,  Eev.  K.  K.  Wharton,  Rev.  C.  L. 
Thompson,  Rev.  R.  Laird   Collier,  Eev.  J. 


Minot  Savage,  C.  O,  Waters,  Rev.  Arthur 
Swazey,  D.  D.,  F.  A.  Riddle,  Rev.  R.  W. 
Patterson,  D.  D.,  A.  D.  Pence,  John  Mc- 
Landburg,  Pvev.  Robert  Collyer,  Henry  G. 
Miller,  William  C.  Goudy,  Rev.  J.  H.  Trow- 
bridge. 

CHARGE  SECOND. 
Rev.  David  Swing,  being  a  minister  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America,  and  a  member  of  the  Presbytery 
of  Chicago,  does  not  sincerely  receive  and 
adopt  the  Confession  of  Faith  of  this  Church 
as  containing  the  system  of  doctrine  taught 
in  the  Holy  Scriptures. 

SPECIFICATIOK  FIRST. 

Since  he  began  to  minister  to  the  Fourth 
Presbyterian  Church  he  has  declared  to  the 
Rev.  Robert  Laird  Collier,  a  Unitarian  min- 
ister in  charge  of  the  Church  of  the  Messiah, 
in  Chicago,  in  substance,  that  he  agreed  with 
him,  Collier,  in  his  theological  views,  but 
thought  it  best  to  remain  as  he  was  for  the 
time,  as  he  could  thereby  accomplish  more 
good  for  the  cause. 

SPECIFICATION    SECOND. 

He  docs  not  accept  and  believe  doctrines 
contained  in  the  Confession  of  Faith,  viz. : 
the  doctrines  commonly  known  as  Predesti- 
nation, the  Perseverance  of  the  Saints,  and 
Depravity,  as  appears  from  the  sermons  above 
referred  to,  and  the  testimony  of  George  A. 
Shufeldt,  Esq. 

SPECIFICATION  THIRD. 

He  has  declared  in  a  letter  to  George  A. 
Shufeldt,  Esq.,  since  he  began  his  ministry 
in  Chicago,  that  he  had  long  before  that  time 
abandoned  three  of  the  five  points  of  Cal- 
vinism affirmed  by  the  Synod  of  Dort, 
naming  the  three,  meaning  three  of  the  doc- 
trines adopted  and  taught  in  the  Confession 
of  Faith. 

SPECIFICATION    FOURTH. 

In  a  sermon  delivered  in  the  Fourth  Pres- 
byterian Church,  April  12,  1874,  he  made 
statements  which,  by  fair  implication,  in- 
volve a  disbelief  in  one  or  more  of  the  lead- 
ing doctrines  of  the  Confession  of  Faith,  to 
wit :  Of  Election,  Perseverance,  Original 
Sin,  the  Vicarious  Sacrifice  of  Christ,  the 
Trinity,  and  the  Deity  of  Christ,  that  is  to 
say  he  uses  the  following  and  similar  lan- 
guage : 

"  After  the  hundred-year  experiment,  there 
is  no  probability  that  any  missionary  gold 


14 


THE  TRIAL  OF  EEV.  DAVID  SWING. 


will  be  exhausted  upon  any  indoctrination 
of  the  heathen  world  in  denominational 
ideas,  for  the  tendency  of  the  present  is  to 
abandon  sectarian  ideas  at  home  ;  hence  there 
will  be  little  disposition  to  inculcate  abroad 
doctrines  which  are  rapidly  dying  by  our 
own  firesides." 

"  The  Church  of  England  joins  with  the 
dissenting  churches  in  India  as  a  fact,  and 
cares  little  for  the  apostolic  succession  in  a 
land  where  the  Brahmin  can  so  far  outdo  it 
in  the  quantity  and  absurdity  of  holy  touch- 
ings  and  holy  pedigrees.  And  there  the 
Calvianist  conceals  his  five  points,  for  the 
crowd  of  Indian  philosophers  can  always 
propose  ten  points  far  more  obscure,  and 
thus  all  the  Protestant  sects  approach  the 
whole  pagan  world  with  the  gospel  reduced 
to  its  simplest  expression.  Blessed  era  it 
will  be  when  we  shall  be  as  fully  ashamed 
in  America  of  the  things  that  divide  us  as 
we  are  when  our  feet  touch  India  or  Japan." 

"  Can  it  be  possible  that  it  requires  home 
training,  that  is,  local  and  youthful  prejudice, 
to  enable  us  to  see  the  immense  worth  of  our 
dogmas,  and  that  approaching  foreigners  not 
fully  drilled  in  the  sectarian  method  and 
tactics  we  fear  their  smile  of  unbelief  or  de- 
rision ?  It  is  ominous,  if,  having  a  score  or 
so  of  peculiar  ideas,  we  should  all  get  to- 
gether and  agree  to  say  little  about  them  to 
this  Chinaman  and  that  Brahmin.  Such  a 
condition  of  things  would  seem  to  indicate 
one  more  step  along  this  path,  an  agreement 
to  say  little  about  these  differences  to  persons 
not  pagans  and  not  upon  foreign  shores." 

""We  have  come  to-day  to  a  survey  of 
Christianity  in  its  truest  significance,  and 
hence  in  its  wanderings  about  from  race  to  race, 
from  island  to  continent,  from  river  to  sea, 
we  may  learn  what  are  its  most  essential 
parts.  A  student  shutting  himself  up  in  his 
room,  may,  from  the  Bible,  elaborate  a  per- 
fect system  which  shall  omit  nothing  regard- 
ing the  human  will  or  the  mode  and  quality 
of  everything,  but  the  world  in  actual  ex- 
periment may  not  need,  nor  even  faintly  ap- 
preciate, one-tenth  part  of  this  closet-made 
system." 

The  Specifications  contained  under  Charge 
I.  are  relied  on  as  contained  under  and  in 
Charge  II.,  the  same  as  if  repeated,  except- 
ing the  6th,  10th,  and  16th. 

The  foregoing  charge  with  its  specifica- 
tions may  be  proved  by  the  printed  writings 
of  Mr.  Swing,  as  above  referred  to,  and  by 


the   testimony  of  the   following   witnesses : 
Eobert  Laird  Collier,  George  A.  Shufeldt, 
and  also  of  the  witnesses  named  in  Charge  I. 
Respectfully  submitted, 
(Signed)  Francis  L.  Patton. 

Chicago,  April  13,  1874. 

A  copy  of  the  charges  and  specifications 
were  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  counsel  for 
the  accused,  and  the  Stated  Clerk  was  directed 
to  send  citations  to  the  witnesses  named 
under  the  charges,  according  to  "Art.  5th, 
Chap.  IV,  Book  of  Discipline." 

The  Moderator  then  proceeded  to  warn 
the  Prosecutor  in  the  terms  "of  the  "  Book  of 
Discipline,  Art.  7th,  Chap.  V." 

The  following  protest  was  then  introduced 
by  the  Prosecutor,  which  was  admitted  t® 
record. 

The  undersigned  beg  leave,  respectfully,  to 
protest  against  the  action  of  this  Presbytery 
in  entertaining  the  recommendation  of  the 
Judicial  Committee  with  reference  to  charges 
and  specifications  tabled  by  Prof.  Patton 
against  the  Rev.  David  Swing,  in  so  far  as 
these  recommendations  relate  to  the  rele- 
vancy and  definitenesB  of  the  specifications, 
and  for  the  following  reasons: 

1.  There  is  nothing  in  the  Book  of  Disci- 
pline requiring  the  appointment  of  such  a 
committee,  and  further,  the  general  rule  for 
judicatures,  No.  40,  recommending  the  ap- 
pointment of  such  committee,  defines  the 
duty  cf  the  committee  to  consist  in  digesting 
and  arranging  the  papers  and  prescribing  the 
whole  order  of  procedure. 

2.  The  recommendation  of  the  Judicial 
Committee  was  what  in  civil  procedure  would 
be  called  a  "demurrer,"  and  should  properly, 
therefore,  be  the  act  of  the  defendant.  The 
Committee  in  making  the  recommendations 
were,  in  fact,  though  not  in  intention,  acting 
as  counsel  for  the  accused. 

3.  It  is  possibljr,  not  proper,  for  the  ac- 
cused to  demur  at  this  stage  of  the  proceed- 
ings, or  it  would  more  legitimately  follow 
that  the  prosecution  should  have  the  right  to 
appeal.  The  fact  that  the  Book  of  Disai- 
pline  provides  that  no  appeal  can  be  taken 
until  the  case  is  issued  might  be  urged  as 
good  reason  for  the  supposition  that  it  does 
not  contemplate  the  right  to  demur. 

4.  It  is  distinctly  slated  in  the  Book  of 
Discipline,  Chap.  V,  Sec.  8,  that  nothing  shall 
be  done  at  the  first  meeting,  except  the  put- 
ting of  a  copy  of  the  charges  and  specifica- 
tions into  the  hands  of  the  accused. 

5.  It  is  provided  in  the  Book  of  Discipline, 
Chap.  V,  Sec.  12,  that  the  importance  of  the 
charges  shall  not  be  determined  until  the  wit- 
nesses are  heard. 

(Signed.)  Francis  L.  Patton, 

W.  F.  Wood, 
J.  D.  Wallace, 

J.  M.  HORTON, 

J.  M.  Faris, 
Martin  Lewis, 
William  Beobston. 


ANSWER  TO  PROTEST. 


15 


A  committee,  consisting  of  Revs.  R.  W. 
Patterson,  E.  L.  Hurd,  and  J.  H.  Trow- 
bridge, were  appointed  to  answer  this  pro- 
test at  the  next  meeting. 

Adjourned  with  prayer,  to  meet  on  May 
4th,  in  the  Chapel  of  the  First  Presby- 
terian Church,  Chicago,  at  9:30  A.  m. 


Chicago,  Monday,  May  4th,  1874. 

The  Presbytery  met,  pursuant  to  adjourn- 
ment, in  the  Chapel  of  the  First  Presby- 
terian Church,  at  10:30  .o'clock  a.  m.,  and 
was  opened  with  prayer. 

Inter  alia. 

Arthur  Swazey  gave  notice  that  he  should 
introduce  a  protest,  at  the  proper  time, 
against  the  form  of  the  charges  and  specifi- 
cations upon  which  Prof.  Swing  had  been 
arraigned. 

R.  W.  Patterson,  on  behalf  of  the  com- 
mittee appointed  to  prepare  and  answer  to 
the  protest  presented  at  the  last  meeting  by 
Prof.  Patton,  submitted  the  following,  which 
was  adopted : 

The  protest  presented  by  Prof.  F.  L.  Pat- 
ton,  and  others,  was  surprising  to  this  body, 
inasmuch  as  the  protesters  had  seemed  to  ac- 
quiesce cheerfully  in  the  action  against  which 
the  protest  is  directed. 

The  protest  is  directed  against  the  action 
of  the  Presbytery  in  entertaining  the  recom- 
mendations of  the  Judicial  Committee,  with 
reference  to  the  charges  and  specifications 
tabled  by  Prof.  Patton  against  the  Rev.  Da- 
vid Swing,  in  so  far  as  these  recommenda- 
tions relate  to  the  relevancy  and  definiteness 
of  the  specifications.  It  will  suffice  to  notice 
very  briefly  the  reasons  assigned  for  the  pro- 
test : 

First — It  is  alleged  that  there  is  nothing 
in  the  Book  of  Discipline  providing  for  the 
appointment  of  a  Judicial  Committee;  and 
it  seems  to  be  assumed,  though  it  is  not  af- 
firmed, that  the  General  Rule  for  Judica- 
tions, No.  41,  does  not  authorize  the  Judicial 
Committee  to  recommend  that  the  prose- 
cutor should  be  required  to  make  his  charges 
or  specifications  more  definite. 

But,  although  there  is  nothing  in  our  Book 
of  Discipline  that  requires  the  appointment 
of  a  Judicial  Committee,  it  is  specifically 
provided  for  in  Rule  41  of  the  General  Rules 
for  Judicatories  recommended  by  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  for  the  adoption  of  the  infe- 
rior Judicatories.  These  rules  were  adopted 
by  the  Presbytery  after  the  reunion  of  the 
Church  at  its  meeting  in  October,  1871,  and 
under  Rule  41  the  Moderator  had  appointed 
a  Judicial  Committee  before  the  charges  of 
Prof.  Patton  were  introduced.  It  is  made 
•'  the  duty  of  the  Judicial  Committee  "  to  di- 
gest and  arrange  all  the  papers,  and  to  pre- 
scribe, under  the  direction  of  the  Judicatory, 
the  whole  order  of  the  proceedings.     "To 


digest"  is  "to  dispose  in  due  method,"  that 
is,  to  put  in  proper  form  for  trial,  or  at  least 
to  consider  and  suggest  to  the  Judicatory  the 
form  required  by  the  rules  of  the  Church. 
Accordingly,  the  Judicial  Committee  of  the 
General  Assembly,  whose  duties  correspond 
closely  with  those  of  our  Judicial  Committee, 
has  often  recommended  not  only  the  issuing 
of  cases  brought  before  them,  but  the  dis- 
missal of  appeals  and  complaints,  on  grounds 
of  informality.  See  New  Digest,  "Appeals," 
and  "Complaints."  Also  Baird's  Digest.  If, 
moreover,  it  should  be  held  that  the  Judicial 
Committee  is  not  bound  in  "duty"  tore- 
commend  that  charges  and  specifications  re- 
ferred to  them  should  be  made  more  definite, 
if  they  deem  them  not  sufficiently  explicit, 
there  is  still  nothing  in  the  nature  of  their 
office  to  forbid  that  they  should  make  such 
recommendations,  and  the  Judicatory  is  at 
liberty,  if  they  choose,  to  accept  their  report 
and  to  act  upon  it,  within  the  limits  of  the 
Constitution. 

Second — It  is  alleged  that  the  recommenda- 
tions of  the  Judicial  Committee  in  the  pre- 
sent case  were  of  the  nature  of  a  demurrer 
in  civil  courts,  which  should  be  made  by  the 
defendant.  But  the  Presbytery,  in  such  cases, 
is  Grand  Jury,  Court,  and  Petit  Jury,  all  in 
one ;  and  its  first  duty  to  see  that  the  charges 
and  specifications  are  conformed  to  the  Con- 
stitution and  the  decisions  of  the  higher 
courts,  both  as  to  substance  and  form,  before 
consenting  to  consider  them  as  a  court ;  and 
this,  whether  the  accused  party  is  present  and 
demurs  or  not.  In  Book  of  Discipline,  Chap. 
I,  Sec.  4,  it  is  said  that  "  nothing  ought  to 
be  considered  by  any  Judicatory  as  an  of« 
fense,  or  admitted  as  matter  of  accusation, 
which  cannot  be  proved  to  be  such  frora 
Scripture,  or  from  the  regulations  and  prac- 
tice of  the  Church  founded  on  Scripture,, 
and  which  does  not  involve  those  evils  which, 
discipline  is  intended  to  prevent."  The  Ju- 
dicatory has,  therefore,  the  right,  and  is 
bound,  to  judge  in  regard  to  the  character 
of  charges  and  specifications,  before  "  admit- 
ting them  as  matter  of  accusation."  In. 
Book  of  Discipline,  Chap.  IV,  Sec.  8,  and  im 
the  decisions  of  1770  and  1824,  New  Digest,, 
page  194,  it  is  required  that  Judicatories, 
shall  "not  receive  or  judge  of  any  charge 
but  such  as  shall  be  seasonably  reduced  to  a 
specialty  in  the  complaint  laid  before  them," 
and  that  "  all  charges  for  heresy  should  be  as 
definite  as  possible,"  even  to  the  specification 
of  the  particular  passage  of  Scripture  or  the 
Confession,  that  are  supposed  to  be  im- 
pugned. But  if  the  Presbytery  is  bound  to 
require  that  charges  and  specifications  be  ex- 
plicit, the  Judicial  Committee  may  recom- 
mend that  this  order  be  taken.  And  in  so 
doing  neither  the  committee  nor  the  Presby- 
tery acts  as  counsel  for  the  accused,  but  both 
use  proper  diligence,  before  an  accusation  is 
admitted,  to  secure  the  performance  of  a 
duty,  prescribed  by  our  Constitution,  with- 
out any  intimation  whatever  on  either  side 
as  to  the  truth  or  justice  of  the  charges  and 
specifications. 


16 


THE  TEIAL  OF  EEV.  DAVID  SWING. 


Third — The  third  reason  of  the  protestors 
seems  to  assume  that  only  the  defendant,  or 
his  counsel,  has  a  right  to  question  the  legal- 
ity of  the  charges  and  specilications,  which 
has  been  shown  to  be  an  error. 

Fourth — The  fourth  reason  of  the  Presby- 
tery is  that  the  Book  of  Discipline,  Chap.  V, 
Sec.  8,  cuts  off  all  business  at  tlie  tirst  meet- 
ing, unless  with  the  consent  of  parties,  ex- 
cept giving  a  copy  of  the  charges  with  the 
names  of  the  witnesses  to  the  accused,  and 
citing  all  parties  to  appear  at  a  subsequent 
meeting.  But  it  is  plain,  especially  after 
comparing  Discipline,  Chap.  IV,  Sec.  5,  with 
the  chapter  and  section  appealed  to  by  the 
Presbyters,  that  that  section  refers  only  to 
action  alter  the  charges  have  been  legally 
entertained  and  the  Court  has  bean  charged 
in  its  judicial  capacity.  Nothing  further  is 
to  be  done  towards  the  iudicial  investigation 
of  the  charges,  "  at  the  tirst  meeting  (unless 
by  consent  of  parties)  than  giving  the  minis- 
ter a  free  copy  of  the  charges,"  etc.  But 
this  surely  does  not  forbid  that  the  Presby- 
tery should  previously  determine  whether  or 
not  the  complaint  should  be  admitted  ;  that 
is,  whether  or  not  it  will  give  the  prosecutor 
leave  to  prosecute  his  charges.  In  the  present 
case  the  prosecutor  was  permitted  to  read  his 
charges  and  specifications,  but  they  were  not 
admitted  by  the  Judicatory  "  as  a  matter  of 
acjcusation  "  until  the  final  report  of  the  Ju- 
dicial Committee  was  iidoi)ted.  At  that 
point  the  Judicatory,  in  the  sense  of  the  book, 
''entered  upon  the  consideration"  of  the 
charges  :  in  other  words,  the  complaint  was 
then  legally  before  the  Presbytery  for  judi- 
cial inquiry,  and  nothing  further  was  done 
^t  that  meeting  by  the  court  in  its  judicial 

■  capacity,  "  than  giving  the  minister  a  full 

■  copy  of  the  charges,"  etc.  Be^^ides,  no  objec- 
tion was  made  to  the  preliminary  action  of 
the  Presbytery,  by  either  party,  on  the 
ground  afterward  defined  by  the  protestors. 
So  that  the  parties  may  be  fairly  regarded  as 
having  given  their  consent  to  the  procedure 

'Of  the  Presbyterj-.  If,  moreover,  the  con- 
struction given  by  the  protestors  to  Disci- 
pline, Chap.  V,  Sec.  8,  be  correct,  they  them- 
. selves  were  out  of  order  in  presenting  their 
protest  "  at  the  first  meeting,"  and  thus  after 
the  court  was  duly  organized  and  charged  by 
the  Moderator. 

Fifth. — The  protestors  allege  as  their  fifth 
and  last  reason,  that  the  Book  of  Discipline, 
Chap,  v.  Sec.  12,  provides  that  the  importance 
of  the  charges  shall  not  be  determined  until 
the  witnesses  are  heard.  But  the  Judicial 
Committee  did  not  recommend,  nor  did  the 
Presbytery,  decide  anything  whatever  in  re- 
gard to  "the  importance  of  the  charges." 
The  action  complained  of  had  respect  solely 
to  the  indefiniteness  of  the  specifications. 

Besides,  the  inference  of  the  protestors 
from  the  passage  in  the  Book  of  Discipline 
to  which  they  appeal  does  not  seem  to  be 
warranted  by  the  language  of  the  book,  for 
it  is  provided  in  Discipline,  Chap.  I,  Sec.  4, 
already  quoted,  that  the  Judicatory  "shall 
not  admit  anything  as  a  matter  of  accusation 


which  cannot  be  proved  to  be  such  from 
Scripture,  or  from  the  regulations  of  the 
Church,  founded  on  Scripture."  The  Judi- 
catory is  therefore  bound  to  reject  certain 
classes  of  charges,  in  lirnine  as  not  entitled 
to  judicial  consideration.  But  then  after 
charges  have  been  entertained  as  in  appear- 
ance sufiiciently  important  to  be  investigated 
it  may  appear  from  the  testimony  of  wit- 
nesses or  other  evidence  that  they  are  not 
well  founded.  If,  however,  on  hearing  the 
witnesses,  the  charges  still  appear  important, 
and  seem  to  be  well  supported,  the  Judica- 
tory shall  proceed  as  the  section  directs. 
This  construction  preserves  the  harmony  of 
the  Book  of  Discipline  with  itself,  while  that 
of  the  protestors  brings  its  difl'erent  provis- 
ions into  conflict  with  one  another,  and  would 
oblige  us  to  conclude  that  no  Judicatory  may 
reject  even  the  most  frivolous  or  indefinite 
charges  on  any  ground  whatever. 

All  of  which  is  respectfully  submitted. 

(Signed.)  K.  W.  Patterson,   \ 

E.  L.  HuKD,  ^Com. 

J.  H.  Trowuridge,  J 

The  Stated  Clerk  announced  that  all  the 
witnesses  named  in  the  charges  and  specifi- 
cations had  been  duly  cited  to  appear  at  this 
meeting. 

The  Moderator  then  called  the  attention  of 
the  Presbytery  to  the  fact  that  they  "  "Were 
about  to  pass  to  the  consideration  of  the 
business  assigned  for  trial;"  and  enjoined 
"  on  the  members  to  recollect  and  regard  their 
high  character  as  judges  of  a  court  of  Jesus 
Christ,  and  the  solemn  duty  in  which  they 
are  about  to  act."      (See  General  Kules  39.) 

He  also  proceeded  to  warn  the  prosecutor 
"  that  if  he  failed  to  prove  the  charges  he 
must  himself  be  censured  as  a  slanderer  of 
the  gospel  ministry  in  proportion  to  the 
malignancy  or  rashness  that  shall  appear  in 
the  prosecution."  (See  Book  of  Discipline, 
Chapter  V,  Sec.  7.) 

Professor  Swing  then  appeared  and  plead- 
ed not  guilty  to  the  charges  and   specifica- 
tions in  the  following  terms : 
Mr.  Moderator  and  Brethren  : 

Called  upon  in  the  outset  of  these  proceed- 
ings to  enter  my  plea  to  the  charges  and 
specifications  presented  by  Francis  L.  Patton, 
I  beg  permission  to  submit  the  following : 
I  object  to  the  charges  as  too  vague  and  as 
embracing  no  important  offense,  yet,  not 
wishing  to  raise  any  technical  objections,  I 
enter  the  plea  of  "  Not  guilty."  I  admit  the 
extracts  from  sermons  and  writings,  but  I 
would  ask  the  Presbytery  to  consider  the  en- 
tire essays  or  whole  discourses  from  which 
the  extracts  are  made.  I  avow  myself  to  be 
what,  before  the  late  union,   was  styled  a 


PROF.  SWING'S  DECLAEATION. 


17 


New  School  Presbyterian,  nnd  deny  myself 
to  have  come  into  conflict  with  any  of  the 
Evangelical  Calvinistic  doctrines  of  the  de- 
nomination with  which  I  am  connected,  and 
I  beg  permission  to  enter  as  a  part  of  my 
plea  the  following  statements:  1.  Regarding 
my  relations  to  the  Liberal  Churches.  2, 
Regarding  my  relations  to  tlie  Presbyterian 
Church.  Of  these  I  shall  speak  in  their 
order. 

Bj'  way  of  explaining  the  quantity  of  the 
public  offense,  I  will  state  that  of  fifteen  lec- 
tures delivered  in  this  city  for  benevolent 
purposes  all  but  two  were  on  behalf  of  the 
Evangelical  Churches,  and,  in  all  cases  but 
one,  remuneration  was  declined.  Hence  the 
spirit  that  prompted  such  lectures  must  have 
been  not  any  marked  partialit}^  for  the  so- 
called  Liberal  societies.  This  much  as  to  the 
quantity  of  the  alleged  offense.  Upon  the 
quality  of  the  conduct  I  would  submit  the 
following  observations : 

1.  There  is  no  valuable  theory  of  life  ex- 
cept that  of  good  will  towards  all  men.  It 
is  only  upon  the  basis  of  a  wide  friendship 
any  one  can  live  well  the  few  years  of  this 
existence,  and  hence  to  decline  to  lecture  on 
behalf  of  a  Unitarian  chapel  would  do 
more  harm  to  the  mutual  good  will  upon 
which  society  is  founded  than  it  would  do 
good  to  an  orthodox  theology  or  harm  to  a 
Liberal  creed. 

2.  If  the  object  of  the  Evangelical  pulpit 
is  to  promulge  its  better  truth,  it  can  do  so 
only  so  far  as  its  ministry  reveal  a  deep 
friendship  toward  all  mankind,  and  so  far  as 
they  unfurl  the  banner  of  their  own  love, 
while  they  are  presuming  to  speak  of  the  im- 
partial love  of  their  Divine  Master.  There 
remains  no  longer  any  power  of  authority  in 
the  pulpit.  The  time  when  the  civil  police 
drove  a  halting  sinner  into  the  true  church 
has  disappeared,  and  the  modern  pulpit  must 
communicate  its  ideas  along  the  chords  of 
friendship,  and  he  will  persuade  the  most 
men  whose  heart  can  gather  up  the  largest 
and  most  diverse  multitude  into  the  grasp  of 
its  pure  affections. 

3.  But  let  us  come  now  to  the  grandest  rea- 
son why  a  Presbyterian  may  express  in  many 
ways  a  kind  regard  for  these  so-called  Liberal 
sects.  The  sin  of  the  "  lecture,"  as  charged, 
must  be  based  upon  the  assumption  that  the 
Unitarian  sects  are  outcasts  from  God,  hav- 
ing no  hope  in  the  life  to  come.  The  names 
of  Channing,  and  Elliott,  and  Huntington, 


and  Peabody,  in  the  pulpits  of  that  sect  and 
the  Christ-like  lives  of  thousands  in  the  con- 
gregations of  that  denomination,  utterly  ex- 
clude from  my  mind  and  my  heart  the  most 
remote  idea  that  in  showing  that  brother- 
hood any  kindness,  I  am  offering  indirect 
approval  to  persons  outside  the  pale  of  the 
Christian  religion  and  hope.  The  idea  that 
these  brethren  are  doomed  to  wrath  beyond 
the  tomb  I  wholly  repudiate.  It  is,  indeed, 
my  conviction  that  they  do  not  hold  as  cor- 
rect a  version  of  the  Gospel  as  that  announced 
by  the  Evangelical  Alliance  a  few  years  ago, 
yet  I  am  just  as  certain  that  the  Blessed  Lord 
does  not  bestow  his  forgiveness  and  grace 
upon  the  mind  that  possesses  the  most  accur- 
ate information,  but  upon  the  heart  that  loves 
and  trusts  Him.  It  is  possible  that  the  ven- 
erable Dr.  Hodge,  of  Princeton,  holds  a 
more  truthful  view  of  Jesus  than  may  be 
held  by  the  distinguished  Peabody,  who  has 
just  lectured  from  his  Unitarian  standpoint 
before  the  Calvinists  in  the  Union  Theologi- 
cal Seminary,  but  we  can  point  to  nothing  in 
the  Bible  that  would  indicate  that  Heaven  is 
to  be  given  to  only  the  one  of  these  two 
giants  who  may  possess  the  clearer  apprehen- 
sion of  a  truth.  It  might  be  assumed  that 
God  grants  the  world  salvation  only  on  ac- 
count of  the  expiatory  atonement  made  by 
a  Redeemer,  but  that  God  will  grant  this  sal- 
vation to  only  those  who  fully  apprehend  this 
fact,  is  an  idea  not  to  be  entertained  for  an 
instant,  for  this  would  give  Heaven  only  to 
philosophers,  and  indeed  only  to  those  of  this 
small  class  who  shall  have  made  no  intellec- 
tual mistake.  Looking  upon  the  multitudes 
who  need  this  salvation,  and  seeing  that  they 
are  composed  of  common  men,  women  and 
children  who  know  nothing  of  the  distinc- 
tions of  formal  theology,  we  cannot  but  con- 
clude that  paradise  is  not  to  be  a  reward  of 
scholarship,  but  of  a  loving,  obedient  faith  in 
Jesus  Christ. 

"When  we  remember  these  things,  and  re- 
call that  Dr.  Isaac  Watts  was  accused  of  being 
a  Unitarian,  so  difficult  often  is  it  to  perceive 
the  dividing  line,  we  cannot  for  a  moment 
place  these  persons  called  Unitarians  outside 
the  great  and  generous  love  of  the  Saviou  •. 
I  stand  ready,  therefore,  at  all  times  to  ex- 
press toward  these  sects  a  friendship  not  only 
human,  and  wise,  and  social,  but  also 
Christian. 

The  harmony  existing  between  all  these 
brethren  and  myself  is   not   a   harmony   of 


18 


THE  TEIAL  OF  EEV.  DAVID  SWING. 


views  in  mind,  but  a  harmony  of  love  in 
the  soul.  They  each  and  all  know  that  I 
differ  widelj'-  from  them,  but  this  they  and  I 
know — that  only  the  most  gentlemanly  treat- 
ment in  public  and  private  will  we  all  re- 
ceive always  from  each  other.  Much  as  I 
love  Presbyterianism,  a  love  inherited  from 
all  my  ancestors,  if  on  account  of  it,  it  were 
necessary  for  me  to  abate  in  the  least  my  good 
will  toward  all  sects,  I  should  refuse  to  pur- 
chase the  Presbyterian  name  at  so  dear  a 
price. 

The  second  point  to  be  alluded  to  was  my 
relations  to  Presbyterianism.  A  distinction 
evidentl}^  exists  between  Presbyterianism  as 
formulated  in  past  times,  and  Presbyterian- 
ism actual.  A  creed  is  only  the  highest  wis- 
dom of  a  particular  time  and  place.  Hence, 
as  in  States,  there  is  ahvays  a  quiet  slipping 
away  from  old  laws  without  any  waiting  for 
a  formal  repeal,  as  some  of  the  old  statutes  of 
Connecticut  are  lying  dead,  not  by  any  legal 
death,  but  by  long  emaciation  and  final  utter 
neglect  of  friend  and  foe  ;  so  in  all  formu- 
lated creeds.  Catholic  or  Protestant,  there  is 
a  gradual,  but  constant,  decay  of  some  arti- 
cle or  word  which  was  once  promulged  amid 
great  pomp  and  circumstance.  And  yet  no 
Church  is  willing  to  confess  its  past  follj^ 
and  repeal  the  injurious  or  untrue.  All, 
Catholic  and  Protestant,  simply  agree  to  re- 
main silent. 

In  the  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith 
there  are  about  two  hundred  formulas  of 
truth,  or  supposed  truth.  It  is  a  wonderful 
argument  in  favor  of  this  compendium  that 
not  one-tenth  of  these  have  been  found  false 
to  the  Bible  or  false  to  the  welfare  of  society. 
To  designate  these  two  hundred  as  Calvinism 
is  a  gross  injustice,  for  they  are  almost  all 
valuable  truths,  common  to  all  churches,  and 
gathered  up  from  the  sacred  page. 

But  from  a  few  statements  out  of  this  large 
number  the  actual  Presbyterian  Church  has 
quietly  passed  away.  Conventions  cannot 
be  called  every  few  years  to  amend  or  repeal 
some  one  article.  It  would  entail  endless 
debate  and  expense,  and  perhaps  promote 
wide  discord  thus  to  call  from  time  to  time 
a  new  Westminster  Assembly.  As  the 
Christian  world  avoids  a  revision  of  the 
translation  of  the  Bible  because  of  the  tumult 
such  a  new  version  would  probably  create 
among  the  sects,  so  each  particular  Church 
postpones  as  long  as  possible  any  formal 
modification  of  its  historic  statements  of  doc- 


rine.  But  meanwhile  individual  minds  can- 
not be  slaves  :  they  cannot  suspend  the  use  of 
their  judgment  and  best  common  sense. 
Hence,  unable  to  revoke  anjr  dangerous  idea 
by  law,  the  Presbyterian  Church  permits  its 
clergy  to  distinguish  the  actual  from  the 
Church  historic.  To  the  Presbyterian  Church 
actual  I  have  thus  far  devoted  my  life,  giv- 
ing it  what  I  possess  of  mind  and  heart. 

Chief  among  the  doctrines  which  our 
Church  has  passed  by  as  being  incorrect,  or 
else  an  overdevelopment  of  Scriptural  ideas, 
are  all  those  formulas  which  look  toAvard  a 
dark  fatalism  or  which  destroy  the  human 
will,  or  indicate  the  damnation  of  some  in- 
fant, or  that  God,  for  His  own  glory,  foreor- 
dained a  vast  majority  of  the  race  to  ever- 
lasting death.  It  has  been  my  good  or  bad 
fortune  to  speak  in  public  and  in  private  to 
a  large  number  of  persons  hostile  to  our 
church,  and  in  nearly  all  cases  I  have  found 
their  hostility  based  upon  the  doctrines  indi- 
cated above,  and  in  all  ways,  I  have  declared 
to  them  that  the  Presbyterian  Church  had 
left  behind  those  doctrines,  and  that  her 
religion  was  simply  Evangelical,  and  not, 
Tja?'  excellence,  the  religion  of  despair.  In 
my  peculiar  ministry  a  simple  silence  has 
not  been  sufficient.  I  have,  therefore,  at 
many  times  declared  our  denomination  to  be 
simply  a  church  of  the  common  Evangelical 
doctrines. 

Besides  the  formulas  of  its  books,  our 
church  has  suflered  more  than  pen  can  record 
from  the  wild  utterances  of  some  of  its  great 
names,  and  from  these  it  has  been  my  frequent 
duty  to  try  to  separate  her  fair  and  sweeter 
present.  There  were  ages  when  mothers 
wailed  in  awful  agony  over  a  dead  infant  be- 
cause they  had  been  taught  that  children 
"not  a  span  long"  were  suflering  on  the  hot 
floor  of  hell,  and  that  each  new-born  infant 
was  only  a  "lump  of  perdition;"  and,  under 
the  awful  lashing  of  these  thoughts,  mothers 
used  to  baptize  their  dead-born  little  ones, 
piteously  beseeching  God  to  ante-date  the 
sacred  rite.  In  the  midst  of  this  wail  of  in- 
fants damned,  Luther  himself  says,  "God 
pleaseth  you  when  He  crowns  the  unworthy ; 
He  ought  not  to  displease  you  when  He 
damns  the  innocent." 

Against  the  doctrine  of  fatalism,  as  implied 
in  the  perfect  independence  of  God's  decree 
as  to  all  human  conduct,  against  the  ultra 
form  of  human  inability  it  has  been  my  con- 
stant duty,  as  it  seemed,  to  protest,  and  thus 


PllOF.  SWING'S  DECLAEATION. 


19 


defend  our  church  from  the  influence  of  ideas 
so  repudiated  by  modern  thought.  An  emi- 
nent churchman,  perhaps  Luther,  said  "All 
things  take  place  by  the  eternal  and  invari- 
able will  of  God,  who  blasts  and  shatters  in 
pieces  the  freedom  of  the  will." 

Next  to  the  baneful  Calvinistic  estimate 
of  the  will,  comes  the  overstatement  of  the 
idea  of  salvation  by  faith  all  along  through 
the  Presbyterian  history.  Said  Luther,  "You 
see  how  rich  is  the  Christian.  Even  if  he 
would,  he  could  not  destroy  his  salvation  by 
any  sins,  however  grievous,  unless  he  refuse 
to  believe."  "Be  thou  a  sinner  and  sin 
boldly,  still  more  boldly  believe.  From  Christ 
no  sin  shall  separate,  though  a  thousand 
times  a  day  we  should  commit  fornication 
and  murder."  In  my  ministry  I  ;have 
toiled  the  harder  to  unite  faith  and  hol- 
iness, because  of  this  dreadful  page  of 
history,  written  down  against  the  Calvinistic 
branches  of  the  Protestant  Church. 

Next  to  the  injury  the  Presbyterian  Church 
has  sustained  from  its  errors  as  above  men- 
tioned, it  has  become  a  source  of  actual  infi- 
delity by  its  terrific  doctrine  of  hell.  Even 
to  the  day  of  Edwards,  and  since,  the  pic- 
tures of  perdition  have  been  such  as  at  first, 
indeed,  to  frighten  the  multitude,  but  such 
as  afterward  to  destroy  the  idea  of  God. 
Look  where  one  might,  it  was  perdition  to 
all  but  his  sect,  and,  to  look  upon  other  sects 
in  the  pains  of  hell,  was  to  form  a  part  of  the 
hajipiness  of  the  blessed.  The  fagot,  the 
rack,  and  the  boiling  oil  were  a  resort  of  po- 
tentates, for,  if  God  was  so  glorying  in  the 
torment  of  heretics  just  beyond,  it  was  a 
small  matter  if  the  Church  tormented  them 
slightly  on  this  side  the  tomb.  We  need  not 
disguise  the  fact,  my  brethren,  that  the  dark 
side  of  Calvinism  gave  birth  to  infidelity  in 
that  age  when  the  Church  was  narrow  in  its 
love,  broad  only  in  its  damnation.  But  per- 
mit me  to  quote  from  one  who  has  not  been 
arraigned  for  bad  teaching,  but  whose  words 
have  just  been  published  by  the  American 
Tract  Society,  —  Theodore  Christlieb.  He 
says  :  "It  was  the  former  century  which  pre- 
pared the  way  among  ourselves  for  the  pre- 
viilence  of  Kationalism  ?  Was  it  not  the  pet- 
rifaction of  Evangelical  faith  into  dry  forms 
of  a  dead  orthodoxy  ?  The  sermons  of  that 
period  were  for  the  most  part  *  *  «■ 
about  Crypto-Calvinists,  Syncredists,  Syner- 
gists, Majorists,  Antinomians,  Osiandrians, 
Weigelians,  and  Arminians.     *      *      * 


At  such  a  time,  when  cold  orthodoxy 
was  almost  everywhere  substituted  for  living 
faith,  when  a  slavish  adherence  to  the 
church's  standards  was  put  in  place  of  a 
free  inquiry  into  the  sense  of  Scripture, 
and  a  fresh  bondage  to  the  letter  was  intro- 
duced, it  became  a  simple  necessity  for  ener- 
getic minds  like  Lessing  to  come  to  an  open 
breach  with  traditional  Protestantism  *  * 
*  *  Rationalism  was  right  in  contending 
for  simple  morality  in  opposition  to  a  theo- 
retic orthodoxy."  "It  must  be  confessed 
that  the  Church  theology  of  the  last  century 
was  chiefly  to  blame  for  the  general  apostasy 
from  the  ancient  faith  which  then  began. 
From  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century 
to  the  end  of  the  first  third  of  the  nineteenth 
the  chief  authorities  in  pulpits  and  institu- 
tions of  learning  were  promoters  of  Rational- 
ism. *  *  *  por  this  spirit  we 
theologians  have  only  ourselves  to  thank. 
We  are  now  reaping  what  we  ourselves  have 
sown." 

Such  are  the  words  of  a  profound  thinker 
who,  to  his  fame  as  a  thinker,  adds  a  parallel 
fame  of  piety.  Amid  some  of  the  unparalleled 
doctrines  of  our  church,  arose  the  intel- 
lectual revolt  of  the  present  times,  and  we 
can  only  check  the  progress  of  the  evil  by 
withdrawing  the  cause.  It  is  an  ominous 
fact  that  the  Liberal  creed  which  the  chargCg 
in  this  case  attack  has  sprung  chiefly  from 
that  land  which  once  lay  wholly  subject  to 
the  severe  tenets  of  the  Puritans. 

It  seems  to  me  the  world  is  now  fully  ready 
for  an  orthodoxy  that  shall  firmly,  yet  ten- 
derly, preach  all  of  the  creed  except  its  plain 
errors  or  dark  views  of  God  and  man.  Not 
one  of  you,  my  brethren,  has  preached  the 
dark  theology  of  Jonathan  Edwards  in  your 
whole  life.  Nothing  could  induce  you  to 
pi-each  it,  and  yet  it  is  written  down  in  your 
creed  in  dreadful  plainness.  Confess,  with 
me,  that  our  beloved  church  has  slipped 
away  from  the  religion  of  despair,  and  has 
come  unto  Mount  Sion,  into  the  atmosphere 
of  Jesus  as  He  was  in  life  and  death,  full  of 
love  and  forgiveness.  And  yet  it  is  only  in 
the  narrow  field  just  pointed  out  that  I  have 
in  any  way  departed  from  the  doctrines  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church. 

One  of  the  most  distinguished  of  our  the- 
ological teachers  in  the  east  has  just  writ- 
ten :  "There  is  not  enough  in  that  indict- 
ment to  convict  one  of  heresy.  All  these 
commotions  only  point  to  a  time  when  secta- 


20 


THE  TKIAL  OF  EEV.  DAVID  SWING. 


rianism  will  disappear,  and  all  Christians 
will  meet  on  the  platform  of  a  common  faith 
in  one  Christ  and  one  Saviour,  and  fastening 
all  their  faith  upon  Him  as  a  Kedeemer,  will 
cast  oflP  many  of  the  forms  which  now  per- 
plex them." 

Beloved  brethren,  holding  the  general 
creed  as  rendered  by  the  former  New  School 
Theologians,  I  will,  in  addition  to  such  a  gen- 
eral statement,  repeat  to  you  articles  of  be- 
lief upon  which  I  am  willing  to  meet  the 
educated  world,  and  the  skeptical  world,  and 
the  sinful  world,  using  my  words  in  the 
Evangelical  sense :  The  inspiration  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures,  the  Trinity,  the  divinity  of 
Christ,  the  office  of  Christ,  as  a  mediator 
when  grasped  by  an  obedient  faith,  conver- 
sion by  God's  Spirit,  inan's  natural  sinful- 
ness, and  the  final  separation  of  the  right- 
eous and  wicked. 

I  have  now  read  before  you  an  outline  of 
my  public  method  and  of  my  Christian 
creed.  It  is  for  you  to  decide  whether  there 
is  in  me  orthodox  belief  sufficient  to  retain 
me  in  your  brotherhood.  Having  confessed 
everywhere  that  the  value  of  a  single  life 
does  not  depend  upon  sectarian  relations,  but 
upon  Evangelical  or  Christian  relations,  I 
am  perfectly  willing  to  cross  a  boundary 
which  I  have  often  shown  to  be  narrow  ;  but 
going  from  you,  if  such  be  your  order  at  last, 
it  is  the  Evangelical  Gospel  I  shall  still  preach, 
unless  my  mind  should  pass  through  un- 
dreamed of  changes  in  the  future. 

From  the  'prosecutor  of  this  case  I  would 
not  withhold  my  conviction  that  he  has  acted 
from  a  sense  of  duty  ;  therefore,  to  him,  and 
to  you  all,  brethren,  I  extend  good- will,  and 
hope  that  in  a  wisdom  religious  and  fraternal, 
you  will  be  enabled  to  do  what  is  right  in 
the  sight  of  God, 

A  resolution  was  introduced  by  Abbott  E. 
Kittredge,  and  amended  by  Arthur  Swazej^, 
as  follows  : 

Resolved,  That  the  judicial  proceedings  be 
arrested  at  this  point,  and  that  a  committee 
be  appointed  to  confer  with  the  parties  in 
the  case,  in  the  hope  of  reaching  such  an  un- 
derstanding as  shall  avoid  the  necessity  of 
1  further  trial  ;  and  that  the  appointment  of 
this  committee  is  not  to  be  construed  in  anj^ 
way  or  degree,  directly  or  indirectly,  as  a 
post  fndo  authorization  of  approval  of  the 
prosecution  in  bringing  his  case  into  court, 
nor  that  from  the  presentment  and  answer 


the  prosecutor  has  any  prima  facia  claims  to 
be  satisfied  in  any  matter  pertaining  to  this 
case,  except  as  he  is  satisfied  in  the  prosecu- 
tion and  judgment  of  the  case  before  the 
Presbytery. 

After  much  discussion  the  resolution  was 
laid  on  the  table,  and  ordered  to  be  entered 
in  the  records. 

Professor  Patton  moved  a  continuance  of 
the  trial  for  two  months  in  order  to  obtain 
the  testimony  of  Kobert  Laird  Collier,  a 
witness  now  in  Europe,  and  presented  the 
following  affidavits  in  support  of  the  motion  : 

In  the  matter  of  the  complaint  of  Kev. 
Francis  L.  Patton  against  Rev.  DavidSwing, 
before  the  Presbytery  of  Chicago. 

Francis  L,  Patton  being  duly  sworn,  de- 
poses and  says,  upon  his  information  and 
belief,  that  Kobert  Laird  Collier,  who  is 
named  as  a  witness  in  support  of  the  com- 
plaint, and  resides  in  the  city  of  Chicago, 
left  his  home  a  short  time  before  the  meet- 
ing of  this  Presbytery  for  a  tour  in  Europe, 
expecting  to  be  absent  until  next  September, 
and  therefore  his  testimony  cannot  be  ob- 
tained at  the  present  time. 

He  further  says  that  he  had  no  knowledge 
or  information  of  the  matter  mentioned  in 
the  first  specification  under  the  second  charge 
until  after  he  gave  notice  to  the  Presbytery 
of  a  purpose  to  present  this  complaint,  that 
a  few  days  after  that  meeting  he  heard  a  re- 
port, purporting  to  come  from  the  Rev.  B. 
M.  Hobson,  of  Kentucky,  that  Robert  Coll- 
yer,  of- Unity  Church,  in  this  city,  on  the 
occasion  of  delivering  a  lecture  in  Cynthi- 
ana,  Kentucky,  during  last  winter,  had  stated 
that  he  had  received  a  letter  from  Rev.  Da- 
vid Swing,  with  a  declaration  substantially 
the  same  as  mentioned  in  said  specification, 
and  thereupon  inquiry  was  made  of  Dr. 
Robert  Coliyer,  who  said,  as  deponent  is  in- 
formed, that  he  had  never  received  any  such 
statement,  and  had  never  been  in  Cynthi- 
ana  ;  but  about  the  same  time  he  obtained 
this  information  he  also  heard  that  Dr.  Ro- 
bert Laird  Collier  had  lectured  during  the 
late  winter  at  Cynthiana,  and  for  the  pur- 
pose of  ascertaining  the  truth  of  the  report, 
the  deponent  dropped  a  letter  to  Mr.  Hob- 
son  and  asked  him  to  make  a  written  state- 
ment of  the  facts,  verified  by  oath,  and  in 
answer  to  such  request  he  received  an  affida- 
vit, which  is  hereto  attached  and  submit- 
ted to  the  Presbytery. 

And  this  deponent  further  says  that  he  is 
informed,  and  believes,  that  Dr..  Collier,  be- 
fore his  departure  from  Chicago,  boxed  up 
his  papers  and  left  them  in  store  in  some 
place  unknown  to  this  deponent,  and  that 
there  is  no  person  who  has  the  right  to  per- 
mit an  examination  of  the  papers,  without 
the  consent  of  Dr.  Collier,  and  there  has  not 
been  sufficient  time  to  obtain  such  permis- 
sion. 


PEOCEEDINGS. 


21 


And  the  deponent  submits  these  facts  to 
Presbytery  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that 
the  testimony  of  Dr.  Collier  is  material,  that 
it  is  not  the  fault  of  tlie  deponent  that  the 
evidence  cannot  now  be  produced,  and  the 
grounds  upon  wliich  the  first  sjiecifieatiori 
under  the  second  cliarge  rests,  and  to  enable 
the  Presbytery  to  determine  the  proper  ac- 
tion to  be  taken. 

[Signed]  Francis  L.  Patton. 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me,  this   4th  day  of 
May,  ib74. 
[Signedj  Frank  E.  Oliver, 

Notary  Public. 

I  hereby  certifj*,  that  on  or  about  9th  Dec. 
last,  at  the  Smith  House,  in  Cynthiana,  Ky., 
I,  in  company  with  ,otlier  gentlemen  called 
upon  Mr.  Kobert  Laird  Collier,  in  the  after- 
noon preceding  the  evening  on  which  lie  lec- 
tured in  the  Arcolian  Hall :  that  during  the 
interview,  in  a  very  free  and  general  conver- 
sation, mainly  on  theological  subjects,  I 
asked  him  particularly  about  the  general 
position  of  Prof.  Swing  as  to  his  theological 
views,  as  he  was  understood  in  Chicago : 
that  Mr.  Collier  stated  in  reply  that  Mr. 
Swing  preached  substantially  buch  views  as 
he  himself  entertained  ;  tliat  such  preaching- 
was  novel  and  attractive  to  Mr.  Swing's  con- 
gregation ;  that  it  was  in  accordance  with 
the  advanced  thought  on  such  subjects,  and 
in  advance  of  the  formulated  theology  :  that 
he  had  written  a  note  to  Mr.  Swing  asking 
him  where  he  stood,  and  that  the  reply  of 
Mr.  Swing  to  that  note  was,  that  he  was 
with  him — meaning,  as  I  understood,  that 
they  were  in  accord  in  their  views :  and  that 
the  note  of  Mr.  Swing  further  stated  that  it 
was  best  he  should  continue  in  the  position 
he  then  occupied,  as  in  that  way  he  could  do 
more  to  advance  their  common  views. 

This  deponent  does  not  design  to  say  that 
these  were  the  precise  terms  used  by  Mr. 
Collier,  but  that  it  was  the  substance  of  what 
passed  in  that  conversation  with  reference  to 
Prof.  Swing,  and  embraces  much  of  the 
phraseology. 

(t'igned,)  B.  M.  HoBSON. 

Cyntliiana,  Ky.,  April  9,  1874. 

I  hereby  certifj'.  that  I  was  present  and 
took  part  in  the  conversation  with  Kobert 
Laird  Collier,  referred  to  in  the  foregoing 
deposition  of  13.  M.  Hobson  :  that  1  was 
deeply  interested  in  the  subjects  discussed  : 
that  while  I  do  not  remember  all  the  details 
stated  in]  the  above  deposition,  my  general 
impressions  were  the  same  with  those  of  B. 
M.  Hobson ;  that  I  was  astonniled  at  the 
heresies  announced  by  Piobcrt  Laird  Collier, 
and  that  1  distinctly  understood  him  to  say 
that  Prof.  Swing  agreed  with  him  in  his 
views,  and  either  that  they  exchanged  pul- 
pits or  that  Swing  preached  in  his  (Collier's) 
pulpit,  or  he  (Collier)  in  Swing's  pulpit. 
(Signed,)  Ji.  PoRMAN. 

Cynthiana,  Ky.,  April  9,  1874. 

STATE  OF   KENTUCKY,! 
County  of  Hamson.         J  '*" 
On  this,  the  9th  day  of  April,  1874,  personally  appeared 
before  me,  a  Notary  Public  within  and  for  said  county, 


Revd.  B.  M.  Hobson,  and  the  Revd.  E.  Forman,  to  me 
well  known,  and  made  oath  to  the  foregoing  statements 
-signed  by  them  respectively. 

[Signed,]  J.  S.  WITHERS, 

Notary  Public  and  Conveyancer. 

Rev.  George  C.  Noyes,  oHered  the  follow- 
ing affidavit: 

Chicago,  Mat  1,  1874. 
Rev.  George  C.  Noyks, 

My  Dear  Sir :  I  have  received  your  letter 
of  tne  30th  ult.,  asking  for  information  in  re- 
lation to  the  time  when  Rev.  R.  L.  Collier  will 
probably  return  from  Europe ;  as  to  my  ac- 
quaintance with  him ;  and  as  to  my  knowl- 
edge of  the  contents  of  any  letter  from  Prof. 
Swing  to  him  in  relation  to  doctrinal  agree- 
ment between  those  gentlemen. 

In  the  latter  part  of  March,  the  First  Uni- 
tarian society,  of  this  city,  commonly  called 
the  Church  of  the  Messiah,  gave  Mr.  Collier 
a  leave  of  absence  until  the  1st  of  next  Sep- 
tember. I  saw  Mr.  Collier  as  he  took  the 
train  on  his  departure  for  Europe,  and  have 
since  corresponded  with  him,  and  it  is  my 
luiderstanding  that  he  expects  to  be  able  to 
return^  and  will  return  to  the  city  about  the 
1st  of  September. 

I  have  known  Mr.  Collier  about  fifteen 
years,  and  during  the  last  eight  years  our  re- 
lations have  been  intimate. 
_  Un  the  completion  of  the  church  edifice  of 
the  First  Unitarian  Society,  last  October,  the 
building  committee,  of  which  I  was  then  a 
member,  suggested  to  Mr.  Collier  the  pro- 
priety of  inviting  Professor  Swing,  among 
other  clergymen  of  the  city,  to  take  part  in 
the  dedicatory  services  of  the  church.  The 
invitation  was  given,  and  Professor  Swing 
wrote  a  letter  in  reply,  declining  to  take  part 
in  the  dedicatory  services.  This  letter  was 
shown  to  myself  and  other  members  of  the 
building  committee.  While  I  do  not  remem- 
ber wiih  verbal  accuracy  the  language  of  the 
letter,  my  recollection  is  clear  as  to  its  sub- 
stantial import.  After  declining  to  take 
part  in  the  services,  he  added  that  he  was 
in  doubt  as  to  his  duty  in  the  matter,  but 
on  the  whole  thought  he  had  better  decline  ; 
that  he  had  uniformly  spoken  kindly  of  Mr. 
Laird  Collier,  of  Mr.  Robert  Collyer,  and 
of  their  work.  There  was  in  the  letter 
no  expression  of  theological  opinion,  and 
nothing  that  implied  that  he  agreed  with 
Mr.  Collier  in  his  theological  views.  I  have 
no  doubt  but  that  this  is  the  only  letter  that 
has  given  occasion  to  the  report  recently 
made  that  Professor  Swing  has  stated  that  he 
agreed  with  Mr.  Collier  in  his  theological 
views.  1  nuiy  add  that  the  Unitarian  body 
in  this  country  has  never  authorized  any 
statement  of  it»  religious  belief,  and  has  uni- 
formly refused  to  allow  any  such  statement 
to  be  made  under  the  sanction  of  its  author-  .  / 
ity ;  and  there  is  no  methud  by  which  one 
may  determine  the  theological  views  of  Mr. 
Collier  or  of  any  other  Unitarian,  except  by 
going  to  original  sources,  as  found  in  thej, 
separate  utterances  of  individual  opinion. 

In  accordance  with  your  sugg>stion  that 
you  might  have  occasion  to  use  this  answer 


22 


THE  TEIAL  OF  EEV.  DAVID  SWING. 


to  your  letter  as  an  affidavit,  I  append  a,  jurat 
hereto.     KespectfuUy, 

(Signed)  Daniel  L.  Shor£Y. 

STATE  OF  ILLINOIS, ) 
Cook  County.  j 

I,  Daniel  L.  Shorey,  being  first  duly  .sworn,  depose 
and  say  that  the  statements  in  the  foregoing  letter  are 
true,  as  I  verily  believe. 

(Signed,)  Daniel  L.  Shorey. 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me  this  second  day  of 
May,  A.  D.  1874. 

(Signed)  Azel  T.  Hatch, 

Notary  Public. 

Dr.  Swazey  made  certain  inquiries  of  Pro- 
fessor Patton  regarding  the  importance  of 
E.  L.  Collier's  testimony  and  the  probability 
of  his  obtaining  it. 

Mr.  Noyes  then  introduced  as  a  witness 
Mr.  N.  S.  Bouton,  who,  having  been  sworn, 
testified  as  follows : 

Question — Have  you  somewhat  recently 
had  a  conversation  with  the  Eev.  Eobert 
Laird  Collier  in  regard  to  his  theological 
views  ? 

A.  I  had  a  conversation  with  him  about 
one  year  since — one  year  ago  on  the  1st  of 
June.  I  had  occasion  to  go  to  Detroit  in 
his  company,  and  I  took  occasion  to  talk 
with  him  in  relation  to  his  religious  doctrinal 
views.  At  that  time  I  asked  him  a  question 
in  relation  to  his  views  on  tlie  divinity  of 
Christ,  for  that  I  noticed  in  his  prayers  that 
he  often  closed  in  the  same  way  as  other 
ministers,  so  that  I  would  not  have  noticed 
that  he  diflrered  in  his  views  from  Presbyte- 
rian or  Congregational  clergymen.  He  said  : 
"My  views  have  never  changed  since  I  left 
the  Methodist  Church.  I  did  not  leave  the 
Methodist  Church  because  of  any  change  in 
my  views,  but  it  was  fully  understood  when 
applied  to  to  join  the  Unitarian  Church  that 
I  would  not  surrender  my  views  or  religious 
opinions — that  I  did  not  turn  Unitarian. 
He  was  emphatic  in  the  statement  that  he 
had  made  no  change  whatever  in  his  opin- 
ions, and  he  went  on  to  explain  the  reason 
why  he  went  into  that  church  to  preach. 

Professor  Patton  then  cross-examined  the 
witness  as  follows : 

Q.  Did  he  say  what  hi  lews  were  before 
he  left  the  Methodist  Church  ? 

A.  I  don't  think  we  discussed  that  point, 
except  in  relation  to  the  divinity  of  Christ. 

Q.  Did  he  express  his  views  on  that  sub- 
ject? 

A.  He  believed  in  Christ  as  the  Saviour 
as  he  had  done — he  had  never  made  a  change 
in  that  opinion. 

Q.    Did  he  say  he  believed  Christ  was  God  ? 


A.     Don't  think  I  asked  that  question. 

Q.  Did  he  go  on  to  speak  on  other  topics 
of  theology  ? 

A.  We  were  speaking  particularly  of  the 
divinity  of  Christ. 

Q.     What  did  ho  say  about  that  ? 

A.  He  said  he  had  made  no  change  what- 
ever in  his  views  he  held  when  in  the  Meth- 
odist Church,  and  he  was  not  a  Unitarian, 
and  did  not  go  into  the  church  as  such. 

Q.  How  did  he  get  into  the  church  if  he 
is  not  a  Unitarian  ? 

A.  He  said  when  he  preached  as  a  Meth- 
odist a  large  number  of  Unitarians  gathered 
at  his  services,  and  they  finally  made  him  a 
proposition  to  go  into  the  Unitarian  Church. 
He  at  first  declined,  but  afterwards  accepted 
the  proposal  and  entered  the  church  with  a 
proviso,  that  in  the  morning  he  should 
preach  a  sermon  for  the  congregation  and 
church,  while  he  should  have  the  privilege 
of  giving  lectures  or  preaching  in  the  even- 
ing, without  regard  to  the  religious  opinion 
of  his  church.     This  was  his  arrangement. 

Q.  He  did  not  go  into  any  discussion  in 
regard  to  the  divinity  of  Christ? 

A.     No. 

Q.  He  did  not  distinguish  between  the 
divinity  of  Christ  and  the   deity  of  Christ  ? 

A.  The  first  question  was :  "Why  do 
you  in, closing  your  prayers  ask  that  they 
may  be  granted  because  of  Christ  or  for 
Christ's  sake  ? 

Q.     Did  you  discuss  the  trinity  ? 

A.     No  ;  I  don't  think  we  did. 

Testimony  read  to  and  apj^i'oved  by  witness. 

[Signed]  N.  S.  Bouton. 

The  prosecutor  here  entered  his  dissent 
from  the  action  of  the  court  in  receiving 
the  testimony  of  N.  S.  Bouton. 

Adjourned  with  prayer,  until  Tuesday 
morning.  May  5th  inst.,  at  9:30  o'clock. 


Tuesday,  May  5,     :30  A.  M. 

The  Presbytery  re-assembled  and  was  con- 
stituted with  prayer  by  the  Moderator. 
Inter  alia. 

Dr.  Swazey  requested  that  the  questions 
and  answers  which  passed  betvyeen  himself 
and  Prof.  Patton,  during  the  session  of  yes- 
terday, be  admitted  to  the  records. 

After  discussion  the  following  questions 
and  answers,  taken  from  the  stenographic 
report,  and  read  by  Dr.  Swazey,  were  order- 
ed to  be  entered  as  a  part  of  the  records : 


PROCEEDINGS, 


23 


Dr.  Swazey : — I  desire  to  ask  the  prosecutor 
one  question, — if  he  is  prepared  to  say  that 
he  cannot  prove  the  case  without  the  tes- 
timony of  Mr.  Collier — to  prove  that  second 
charge. 

P)-of.  Paiton: — I  am  not  prepared  to  say 
anything. 

Dr.  Swazey : — I  wish  to  ask  another  ques- 
tion, and  I  hope  I  shall  get  an  answer ; 
whether  he  has  had  communication  with 
Eobert  Laird  Collier  since  he  began  the 
prosecution  ? 

Prof,  Paiton: — I  have  not  heard  from  him 
at  all. 

Dr.  Swazey : — Have  you  made  endeavors 
to  hear  from  him  ? 

Prof.  Paiton  : — No,  I  have  not  made  any 
endeavors  ;  and  I  do  not  think  it  is  relevant, 
with  all  respect  to  Dr.  Swazey,  that  I  should 
be  catechised. 

Dr.  Swazey : — He  should  show  that  he  has 
used  all  personal  endeavors  to  bring  his  wit- 
nesses. 

Prof.  Paiton  : — I  shall  respond  by  saying, 
that,  while  I  might  decline  to  answer  his 
questions,  I  have  not  been  disrespectful  to 
the  court,  nor  have  I  been  neglectful  of  ray 
duty. 

The  prosecutor  thereupon  entered  his  pro- 
test as  follows : 

The  undersigned  protests  against  the  ac- 
tion of  the  Presbytery  in  recording  the  ques- 
tions of  Dr.  Swazey  asked  of  Prof.  Patton, 
and  for  the  following  reasons : 

1.  He  had  furnished  the  Presbytery  an  affi- 
davit which  set  forth  with  sufficient  accuracy 
the  reasons  for  asking  a  continuance  of  the 
case  pending,  and  that  it  is  not  competent 
for  the  Presbytery  to  investigate  any  fact 
outside  of  the  affidavit. 

2.  Because  the  answers  were  not  given  un- 
der the  solemnity  of  an  oath,  and  are  not 
entitled  to  be  regarded  as  evidence. 

3.  Because  the  questions  and  answers  afore- 
said are  a  reproduction,  from  the  memory  of 
the  Court,  of  a  conversation  which  took 
place  yesterday  afternoon,  in  which  the  re- 
plies were  made  as  a  matter  of  courtesy,  and 
with  no  idea  that  they  were  to  form  a  part 
of  the  record  of  the  Presbj'tcry. 

4.  Because  it  is  the  belief  of  the  under- 
signed that  the  newspaper  report  of  the  said 
conversation  is  not  correct. 

(Signed.)  F.  L.  Patton. 

Drs.  Swazey  and  Hurd,  and  Elder  Gould 
were  appointed  a  committee  to  answer  this 
protest. 

The  motion  for  continuance  was  then 
taken  up. 

Mr.  Noyes  submitted  the  following  affi- 
davit : 


David  Swing,  being  duly  sworn,  deposes 
and  says  that,  upon  the  dedication  of  the 
Church  of  the  Mesiah,  in  Chicago,  111.,  the 
Rev.  Robert  Laird  Collier  wrote  him  a  letter 
asking  affiant  to  assist  in  the  dedication  of 
his  new  church  ;  that  affiant  replied  thereto, 
declining  to  assist  in  such  dedication;  that 
in  such  letter  there  was  no  expression  of  his 
(affiant's)  religious  belief;  that  he  did  not 
state  therein  that  he  "agreed  with  him" 
(Collier)  "  in  his  theological  views,"  or  that 
he  "  thought  it  best  to  remain  as  he  was  for 
the  time,  as  he  could  thereby  accomplish 
more  good  for  the  cause."  And  he  did  iTot 
state  therein  anything  of  the  purport  ex- 
pressed in  the  first  specification  under  the 
second  charge  against  him ;  that  the  letter 
above  referred  to  is  the  only  letter  ever  writ- 
ten by  him  to  the  said  Collier ;  that  he 
never,  at  any  time,  used  the  above  or  similar 
language  expressed  in  said  specification  to  the 
said  Collier.  And  affiant  further  says  that 
he  never  exchanged  pulpits  with  said  Collier, 
and  that  he  never  preached  in  said  Collier's 
pulpit,  nor  the  said  Collier  in  his. 

(Signed,)  Dav^id  Swing. 

Sworn  to,  etc., 

(Signed,;  George  Chandler,  Notary  Public. 

The  motion  for  continuance  was  laid  on 
the  table  for  the  present,  with  the  under- 
standing that,  after  the  testimony  shall  have 
been  heard  in  relation  to  the  other  specifica- 
tions in  the  indictment,  if  renewed,  it  may 
then  be  considered. 

Prof.  Patton  entered  his  dissent. 

The  following  stipulation  regarding  print- 
ed matter  olfered  in  evidence,  was  read  : 

In  the  matter  of  the  complaint  of  Rev. 
Francis  L.  Patton  against  the  Rev.  David 
Swing  before  the  PrL-sbytery  of  Chicago,  it 
is  hereby  stipulated  that  upon  the  trial  of 
this  complaint  the  following  documents  and 
publications  may  be  used  in  evidence,  to-wit: 

First.  The  sermons  contained  in  a  book 
entitled  "  Truths  for  To-day,"  and  published 
by  Jansen,  McClurg  &  Co.,  of  Chicago. 

Seco7id.  The  sermons  entitled  Soul  Culture, 
St.  Paul  and  the  Golden  Age,  Salvation  and 
Morality,  Value  of  Yesterday,  Influence  of 
Democracy  on  Christian  Doctrine,  Varia- 
tion of  Moral  Motive,  A  Religion  of  Words, 
Old  Testament  Inspiration,  published  in  the 
Chicago  Pulpit. 

Third.  The  sermons  entitled  The  Decline 
of  Vice,  Christianity  a  Life,  and  A  Mission 
of  Religion,  published  in  the  Alliance  news- 
paper. 

Fourth.  The  article  entitled  "  The  Chicago 
of  the  Christian,"  published  in  the  Lakeside 
Monthly,  October,  1873. 

Fifth.  The  article  entitled  "  The  Interpre- 
tation of  the  Apucalypse,"  printed  in  the  Sun- 
day School  Teacher.,  J  uly,  1873. 

Sixth.  The  following  sermons,  printed  in 
the  Times  and  Tribune  of  this  city,  purport- 
ing to  have  been  preached  by  him,  to-wit: 
The  sermon  on  Providence,  printed  about 
the  15th  of  September,  1872,  and  preached 


24 


THE  TKIAL  OF  EEV.  DAVID  SWING. 


from  II  Peter  III  9,  and  the  sermon  on  the 
death  of  John  Stuart  Mill,  printed  in  the 
T^'ibune. 

Seventh.  The  articles  published  last  year 
over  his  name  in  the  Interior,  to-wit:  The 
articles  entitled  "  Prof.  Swing  on  the  Old 
Testament,"  September  4,  1873  ;  "Old  Testa- 
ment Inspiration,"  September  18,  1873; 
"Errata,"  of  the  Interior,  October  9,  1873. 

And  it  is  stipulated  that  Prof.  Swing  was 
the  author  of  the  said  sermons  and  articles. 
And  it  is  further  agreed  that  any  of  the  said 
publications  may  be  corrected  by  the  origi- 
nals in  the  possession  of  Prof.  Swing,  if  he 
desires  to  produce  them. 

(Signed,)  Francis  L.  Patton, 

George  C.  Noyes, 
For  David  Swing. 
Chicago,  April  27,  1874. 
By  consent  of  both  parties,  Chap.  VI,  Sec. 
7th,  Book  of  Discipline  is  not  to  be  enforced 
upon  witnesses  during  the  present  trial. 

The   prosecutor   then  called   Rev.  W.  C. 
Young,  who.  being  sworn  testified  as  follows  : 
Eev.  Wm.  C.  Young  was  sworn,  and  be- 
ing examined  by  Prof.  Patton,  testified  as 
follows : 

Q.  Mr.  Young,  did  you  ever  have  a  con- 
versation with  Mr.  Swing  with  respect  to  his 
relations  to  the  Liberal  Christians  and  Uni- 
tarians ? 

A.  It  was  about,  I  think,  four  or  five 
weeks  ago,  just  after  our  minister's  meeting, 
that  I  showed  Mr.  Swing  a  letter  I  had  writ- 
ten to  Mr.  Hobson,  whose  name  has  been 
mentioned  here  before  this  court,  and  whom 
I  knew  personally  very  well,  in  which  the 
same  substantially  was  asserted  as  is  asserted 
in  the  affidavit  which  you  have  heard  here. 
I  showed  that  letter  to  Mr.  Swing  and  he 
mentioned,  in  the  conversation  that  ensued — 
a  short  conversation  that  followed,  that  Mr. 
Collier— I  cannot  give  his  words  of  course  ; 
I  can  give  it  substantially — that  Mr.  Collier 
had  at  different  times,  or  at  one  time  said  to 
him  that  "you  and  I  hold  about  the  same 
doctrine,"  or,  "we  do  hold  the  same  doctrine; 
we  feel  and  think  theology  together,"  I  do 
not  profess  to  give  the  words ;  I  am  giving 
the  substance  of  it. 

Q.  Did  he  ever  intimate  to  you  his  know- 
ledge that  he  was  claimed  as  a  Unitarian  ? 

A.  Just  in  that  far,  that  he  said  that  Mr. 
Collier  had  claimed  him  as  being  in  accor- 
dance with  him. 

Q.     Did  he  ever  express  on  general  terms 
that  he  was  claimed  by  the  Unitarians? 
A.     I  do  not  remember  anything  beyond 


his  stating  that  Mr.  Collier  claimed  him  as 
being  in  accord  with  him. 

CROSS  EXAMINED  BY  MR.  NOYES. 

Q.  I  am  requested  to  ask  Mr,  Young, 
whether  Mr.  Swing  said  to  him  that  he 
agreed  with  Mr.  Collier  ? 

A.     No  sir,  he  did  not ;  not  at  all. 

Q.  Only  that  he  said  that  Mr.  Collier  had 
declared  that  he  (Swing)  agreed  with  him 
(Collier)  ? 

A.     Yes  sir. 

Q.  That  Collier  had  claimed  Swing  as 
agreeing  with  him — that  was  all  ? 

A.     Yes  sir. 

Testimony  read  and  approved  by  witness. 
(Signed,)  W.  C.  Young. 

Eev.  C.  L.  Thompson  was  sworn,  and  be- 
ing examined  by  Prof.  Patton,  testified  as 
follows  : 

Q.  Mr.  Thompson,  did  you  ever  have  a 
conversation  with  Mr.  Swing  in  respect  to 
his  being  claimed  as  a  Unitarian? 

A.  Yes  sir.  In  the  course  of  conversa- 
tion with  Prof.  Swing,  that  subject  was  men- 
tioned. 

Q.  "Will  you  be  kind  enough  to  say,  ac- 
cording to  the  best  of  your  knowledge  and 
belief  what  passed  between  you  on  that  sub- 
ject? 

A.  I  do  not  know  that  I  could  express 
very  -(veil  what  passed,  because  it  was  a 
somewhat  free  and  prolonged  conversation 
upon  the  matters  that  were  already  agitating 
the  public,  and  had  begun  to  agitate  the 
Presbytery.  I  shall  be  glad  to  answer  any 
question  that  will  make  definite  the  point 
you  would  like  to  reach. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  state  to  him  particularly 
— did  you  ever  remind  him  of  the  negative 
character  of  his  preaching  —  the  equivocal 
character  of  his  language? 

A.  I  remember  upon  a  certain  occasion — 
the  only  one  upon  which  my  memory — to 
which  my  mind  now  reverts,  of  speaking 
with  Prof.  Swing  concerning  his  having  been 
claimed  by  the  Unitarians,  and  also  concern- 
ing the  fact  that  many  of  the  members  of  the 
Presbytery  seemed  to  be  in  doubt  precisely 
regarding  his  own  position. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  intimate  to  him  that  it 
would  be  well  for  him  to  clear  up  those 
doubts? 

A.  Yes  sir.  As  I  remember,  I  took  the 
liberty  of  suggesting  to  Prof.  Swing,  or  of  in- 
quiring whether  it  would  not  be  wise,  if  he 


TESTIMONY  OF  WITNESSES. 


25 


would,  in  some  way,  state,  in  such  way  as  he 
might  choose,  but  in  some  way  that  would 
come  before  the  public,  his  doctrinal  views, 
that  might  relieve  the  embarrassments  of  his 
friends  and  the  agitation  before  the  public. 

Q.  Did  you  give  bim  to  understand  that 
that  was  your  view  of  the  case — as  to  its  wis- 
dom? 

A.  Yes  sir.  I  think  I  suggested  it  to 
him  ;  which  would  imply  that. 

CROSS  EXAMINED  BY  MR.  NOYKS. 

Q.  Mr.  Thompson,  was  this  before  this 
conversation  that  you  had  with  Prof.  Swing  ? 
was  it  before  or  after  Prof.  Patton  had  made 
his  charge  in  The  Interior,  upon  Prof.  Swing? 

A.  Do  you  refer  to  editorials,  or  to  the 
publications  of  the  charge. 

Eev.  Dr.  Swazey. — I  arise  to  a  question  of 
order,  I  do  not  suppose  that  the  accused  or 
his  counsel  are  willing  to  interpose  any 
objections  in  regard  to  such  kind  of  testi- 
mony for  fear  that  it  might  prejudice  the 
case,  as  though  they  were  not  willing  that 
all  things  should  be  known,  but  I  think,  sir, 
that  the  court  has  a  duty ;  and  I  do  not  think, 
sir,  and  I  am  quite  clear  in  my  thinking  and 
opinion,  that  we  have  a  right  to  ask  about 
private  conversations  between  individuals  in 
regard  to  such  matters. 

Kev.  Mr.  Noyes — The  defendant  is  quite 
willing  that  such  testimony  as  has  so  far  been 
offered  should  go  in. 

The  Moderator — The  Moderator  does  not 
feel  called  upon  to  rule  such  testimony  out  of 
order  in  the  absence  of  any  objection  upon 
the  part  of  the  defendant. 

REV.  MR.  NOYES. 

Q.  I  do  not  refer,  Mr.  Thompson,  to  the 
publication  of  the  charges,  but  to  the  publi- 
cation of  the  doubts,  that  come  to  currently 
rently  called  as  such  ? 

A.  My  recollection  is  that  my  conversa- 
tion with  Prof.  Swing  was  subsequent  to  the 
publication  of  that  editorial. 

Q.  Did  Prof.  Swing  indicate  to  you  that 
there  v/ould  be  any  difficulty  in  coming  out 
in  the  face  of  that  public  arraignment  and 
pleading  to  it  one  way  or  the  other  ? 

A.     Yes  sir. 

Q.  I  will  ask  yon  another  question,  Mr. 
Thompson,  whether  you,  in  this  conversation 
—  at  any  time  during  your  interview  —  said 
to  Prof.  Swing  that  you  personally  were 
satisfied  with  his  orthodoxy  ? 

A.     During  the  conversation  Prof.  Swing 


stated  his  views,  as  I  remember  it,  upon  cer- 
tain points,  which  were,  as  1  remember, 
clear  and  explicit :  and  with  which  state- 
ment I  expressed  my  satisfaction.  I  do  not 
know  that  the  word  orthodoxy  was  used  in 
connection  with  it. 

Q.  Did  you  make  any  request  to  him  at 
that  time  that  the  views  that  you  drew  out 
from  him  —  make  any  request  that  he  would 
publish  those  views  ? 

A.  I  am  not  certain,  sir,  whether  I  sug- 
gested his  publishing  those  views  or  not. 
My  impression  is,  that  those  were  among  the 
views  that  we  had  in  mind  as  we  talked  it 
over,  that  it  would  be  well  if  it  were  made 
public. 

The  Moderator — I  beg  leave  to  call  the  at- 
tention of  the  court  to  one  point  as  to  the 
examination  of  witness  :  That  questions  shall 
be  asked  first  by  the  counsel  for  the  prosecu- 
tion ;  second,  by  the  accused  or  his  assistant 
counsel ;  third,  by  the  moderator,  if  desired  ; 
fourth,  by  any  member  of  the  court,  if  desired. 
I  speak  of  that  as  refreshing  the  memory  of 
the  Presbytery,  so  that  after  the  defendant's 
counsel  have  asked. theirquestions,  it  is  com- 
petent for  any  member  of  the  judicatory,  if 
he  wishes  to,  to  ask  the  witness  a  question. 

Eev.  Mr.  Trowbridge — I  would  like  to  ask 
the  last  witness  one  question. 

Q.  (To  Eev.  Mr.  Thompson.)  You  stated, 
Mr.  Thompson,  that  Prof.  Swing  satisfied  you 
by  his  replies  upon  certain  points  of  doctrine, 
if  I  understood  you  rightly  ;  my  question  is, 
whether  those  points  were  those,  substantially 
those  upon  which  he  is  now  called  in  question  ? 

A.  They  were  some  of  them,  sir.  I  do 
not  now  recall  with  sufficient  distinctness, 
either,  what  those  points  were  ;  nor  do  I  just 
now  know  all  the  points  upon  which  he  is 
now  called  in  question. 

Q.  They  were  these,  however,  that  have 
been  suggested  as  dubious  ? 

A.  Perhaps  I  may  say,  sir,  in  reply,  that 
my  recollection  is  clear  concerning  one  of 
them,  because  Prof.  Swing  read  me  an  extract 
from  an  unprinted  sermon,  which  was  espe- 
cially impressed  upon  my  mind,  viz  : — "  The 
Divinity  of  Clirist." 

Eev.  Mr.  Glenwood — I  would  like  to  ask 
whether  the  witness  means  by  divinity  tiin 
deity  of  Christ  ? 

A.  I  should  not  quarrel  with  the  questions 
about  those  words. 

Q.  I  asked  the  question,  sir,  because 
those  words  have  been  made  a  point  of  inter- 


26 


THE  TKIAL  OF  KEV.  DAVID  SWING. 


rogation  in  this  trial.  I  understand  that  you 
were  satisjBed  that  Prof.  Swing  believed  in 
the  deity  of  Christ  ? 

A.  There  could  be  no  question  of  it,  if 
he  used  words  at  all  in  the  ordinary  sense  of 
them, 

Kev.  Dr.  Patterson — I  would  ask  brother 
Thompson  whether  he  did  or  did  not  express 
his  cordial  agreement  on  the  points  spoken  of 
with  Prof.  Swing — the  points  of  doctrine? 

A.  Prof.  Swing  stated,  as  I  recollect,  his 
belief  in  tlie  divinity  of  Christ,  as  one  of  the 
points,  and  one  or  two  others  that  I  do  not 
just  now  recall;  reading,  as  I  have  said,  an 
extract  from  an  unpublished  sermon  as  an 
indication  of  the  unequivocal  way  in  which 
he  sometimes  stated  the  doctrine,  and  of 
course,  on  this  statement  I  would  agree  with 
him. 

Testimony  read  and  approved  hy  witness. 
(Signed,)  Chas.  L.  Thompson. 

Kev.  Dr.  K.  W.  Patterson  was  sworn  and 
being  examined  by  Prof.  Patton,  testified  as 
follows  : 

Q.  Dr.  Patterson,  will  you  be  kind 
enough  to  state  whether  you  ever  heard  Prof. 
Swing  preach. 

A.     I  have  heard  him  four  or  five  times. 

Q.  In  the  sermons  which  you  heard,  did 
he  bring  out  the  doctrine  which  we  call  the 
"Evangelical  Doctrine;"  I  mean  the  doctrine 
of  salvation  through  the  blood  of  Christ — in 
any  way  to  satisfy  you  ? 

A.  In  one  of  the  sermons  he  did  bring  out 
that  doctrine  in  a  way  to  satisfy  me  that  he 
distinctly  recognized  it,  although  it  was  not 
the  point  of  his  discussion. 

Q.  Strictly  speaking,  would  you  call  the 
sermons  which  you  have  heard  him  preach, 
gospel  sermons  ? 

Kev.  Mr.  Noyes — I  think  that  question 
does  not  contemplate  any  evidence ;  it  is 
simply  an  opinion  ;  it  is  asking  a  criticism 
upon  Prof.  Swing's  sermons  from  the  witness. 

Prof.  Patton — I  will  not  insist  upon  the 
question,  sir.  Dr.  Patterson,  did  you  ever 
express  in  conversation,  your  difficulty  in 
understanding  what  Prof.  Swing  means  in 
his  preaching — your  dissatisfaction  with  it? 

A.  I  have  sometimes  expressed  myself  as 
not  understanding  him  and  wishing  that  he 
would  be  more  explicit ;  not  only  on  doc- 
trinal questions,  but  other  questions ;  no 
more  on  doctrinal  questions,  than  any  other 
question. 

Q.     Are  you  the  author,  Dr.  Patterson,  of 


a  letter  published  in  The  Interior  of  Feb.  26, 
1874,  in  which  the  following  passage  occurs : 
"  Nor  would  I  appear  as  an  apologist  for 
Prof.  Swing's  peculiar  stylo  of  preaching. 
So  far  as  he  avoids  a  clear  and  unequivocal 
statement  of  the  central  doctrines  of  Evan- 
gelical Christianity,  his  preaching  seems  to 
me  seriously  defective." 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  wish  to  say  however  that 
in  the  remark  "in  so  far  as  he  avoids,"  I  did 
not  mean  to  indicate  that  I  thought  he  did 
studiously,  or  intentionally  avoid;  but  so  far 
as  he  did,  I  should  regard  that  judgment 
correct. 

Q.  Do  you  think  that  there  was  reason  for 
saying  that  he  does  avoid  it?  Does  that  state- 
ment mean  to  imply  that  he  does  avoid  it? 

A.  No  ;  I  did  not  mean  to  imply  that ; 
but  in  so  far  as  that  was  true,  if  it  is  true,  I 
should  regard  it  as  a  serious  defect  in  any 
man's  preaching. 

Q.  Would  you  make  such  a  statement  in 
respect  to  any  man's  preaching  of  whom  you 
had  no  doubt  of  his  avoidance  of  mention  of 
these  doctrines  ? 

A.  If  a  man  were  distinguished  for  expli- 
citness  and  clearness  on  those  points,  perhaps 
I  might  not ;  but  I  would  not  imply  that  I 
should  regard  him  as  being  any  more  defec- 
tive on  that  point  than  I  would  mean  to 
imply  that  a  man  was  defective  in  his  style 
of  preaching  who  should  always  insist  upon 
divine  sovereignty  and  election,  to  the  great 
dissatisft\ction  of  his  hearers. 

Q.  But  still  admit  that  he  was  as  defective 
as  one  who — 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  but  1  would  not  regard  either 
as  any  occasion  for  accusation. 

CRO&S-EXAMINED  BY  REV.  MK.  NOTES. 

Q.  I  would  ask  you.  Dr.  Patterson,  how 
many  times  you  have  heard  Prof.  Swing 
preach  ? 

A.  I  have  about  five  times  ;  possibly 
more. 

Q.  Were  any  of  these  sermons  that  you 
have  heard  him  preach  of  a  special  character 
missionary  or  otherwise? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  one  was  a  missionary  ser- 
mon, and  another  of  a  special  character  ;  I 
have  forgotton  now  what  the  subject  was. 
They  were  none  of  them  sermons  that  were 
on  subjects  that  would  naturally  lead  to  any 
doctrinal  discussion,  except  one,  and  in  that 
I  saw  no  peculiar  defect. 

Q.  Do  you  know  of  any  rule  which  pre- 
scribes in  the  Presbyterian  Church,  the  num- 


TESTIMONY  OF  WITNESSES. 


27 


ber  of  times  that  a  minister  shall  preach  upon 
the  distinct  theme  of  salvation  by  the  blood 
of  Christ. 

A.     I  have  not  come  across  any. 

Mr.  Ely — I  would  like  to  a.«k  a  question  : 
Doctor,  have  you  not  expressed  your  regret 
several  times  at  the  indefinite  manner  in 
which  Professor  Swing  stated  his  doctrinal 
convictions  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  as  that  is  a  proper 
question.  I  am,  however,  very  willing  to 
answer  it.  I  have  not  in  that  form.  I  have 
said  that  I  wished  that  he  would  preach  his 
doctrinal  views  somewhat  more  distinctly.  I 
do  not  know  whether  I  have  often  said  so  or 
not.  I  know  I  have  said  so.  As  we  are  very 
apt  to  speak  in  regard  to  ministers  who  differ 
from  ourselves  as  to  their  mode  of  preaching  ; 
not  implying  that  our  style  of  preaching  is 
any  better  than  theirs,  but  only  expressing 
our  own  convictions. 

Rev.  Mr.  Noyes — I  would  like,  if  I  may 
have  leave  to  do  so,  to  ask 

A.  I  would  like  to  add  in  regard  to  that 
point,  that  I  do  not  think  that  I  have  ever 
said  anything  in  the  way  of  finding  fault 
with  Professor  Swing,  but  merely  in  casual 
conversation,  as  all  ministers  are  accustomed 
to  speak. 

Q.  I  would  like  to  ask  Dr.  Patterson  if  he 
has  ever  had  any  personal  conversation  with 
Professor  Swing  in  regard  to  the  points  on 
which  he  has  been  accused  of  being  unsound  ? 

A.     I  have. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  had  any  conversation 
with  him  in  regard  to  the  inspiration  of  the 
Scriptures  ? 

A.  I  have  taken  special  pains  to  ascertain 
his  views  on  that  point,  and  have  drawn  out 
from  him  a  full  impression  of  his  views.  A 
very  full  expression  with  which  I  was  satis- 
fied— to  the  eflTect  that  he  accepted  the  whole 
of  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments as  being  divinely  inspired  in  the  same 
sense  in  which  I  hold  the  doctrine  myself. 

Q.  In  this  conversation,  or  in  these  con- 
versations, if  you  have  had  more  than  one, 
did  the  question  of  the  divinity — or,  as  that 
seems  to  be  regarded  by  the  prosecutor  as  an 
ambiguous  word,  the  deity — of  Christ  ;  did 
j'OU  ever  discuss  that  doctrine  with  him  ? 

A.  I  did  not  at  the  same  time  I  conferred 
with  him  upon  the  subject  of  inspiration, 
for  that  took  the  whole  of  an  entire  sitting ; 
and  he  expressed  himself,  as  I  understood, 
very  unequivocally,  his  belief  in  the  Supreme 


Divinity,  as  I  am  accustomed  to  express  it, 
of  Christ,  or  the  Deity  of  Christ,  in  the  or- 
dinary Evangelical  sense. 

Q.  Without  asking  separate  questions  in 
regard  to  each  of  the  Evangelical  doctrines, 
let  mc  ask,  putting  them  all  into  one  question, 
whether  you  went  over  with  him,  or  drew 
out  from  him  any  expression  of  his  views 
upon  the  doctrines  of  our  Church  which  we 
hold  specially,  in  common  with  other  Evan- 
gelical doctrines  ? 

A.  I  went  over  with  him  all  the  points 
about  which  the  editor  of  The  Interior  ex- 
pressed doubts  ;  and  asked  him  his  opinion 
specifically  with  regard  to  each  one  of  those 
points ;  and  he  satisfied  me  fully  that  he  en- 
tertained Evangelical  views  with  regard  to 
every  one  of  them. 

Mr.  Wakeman — Did  you  not  state  to  him, 
and  others,  at  different  times  that  you  were 
satisfied  with  his  views? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Walker — I  would  like  to  ask  what 
made  you  go  to  see  Professor  Swing  upon 
this  point? 

A.  After  his  expression  of  doubts  in  The 
Interior,  I  felt  it  my  duty  as  a  Christian 
brother,  to  go  to  him,  as  I  thought  any  one 
else  hearing  of  such  things,  who  had  equal 
opportunity  and  professed  to  be  a  friend, 
should  have  done. 

Mr.  Ely — Doctor,  allow  me  to  ask  you 
whether  you  found  it  necessary,  prior  to  that 
time,  to  hold  conversation  with  Professor 
Swing  in  reference  to  these  questions  ? 

A.  Nothing  in  reference  to  the  points 
about  which  the  doubts  were  expressed  in 
The  Interior. 

Q.  I  mean  with  regard  to  his  public  ut- 
terance, whether  you  did  not  hold  his  gen- 
eral preaching,  whether  you  had  not  prior  to 
that  time,  and  whether  you  have  not  stated 
to  others  that  you  did  hold  a  private  conver- 
sation with  him  ? 

A.  I  have  no  recollection  of  ever  con- 
versing with  him  in  regard  to  his  mode  of 
preaching  prior  to  that  time.  I  have  for- 
gotten whether  my  conversation  with  him  in 
regard  to  inspiration  was  before  or  not ;  for 
I  did  not  understand  Professor  Swing  cor- 
rectly at  first  in  regard  to  the  subject  of 
inspiration  ;  and  for  that  reason  I  wished  to 
converse  with  him. 

Q.  Your  opinion,  then,  has  changed  with 
reference  to  his  soundness  on  that  question  ? 

A.     I  will  not  say  my  opinion,  for  I  had 


28 


THE  TRIAL  OF  EEV.  DAVID  SWI:NG. 


no    matured    opinion.      I    was    undecided. 

Q.     "Well,  your  impression  ? 

A.  I  was  in  doubt  what  his  views  were 
at  first. 

Q.     Your  impression  had  changed? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

A  Member. — Doctor,  may  I  ask  a  question, 
sir,  v/hether,  within  a  comparatively  recent 
time,  in  order  to  designate  the  time,  since 
the  question  in  reference  to  Dr.  McKaig  has 
arisen,  you  stated  to  one  of  the  elders  of  his 
church  that  you  considered  Dr.  McKaig  and 
Professor  Swing  equally  guilty  in  this,  that 
they  were  both  digging  out  the  foundation 
of  the  gospel  ? 

A.  I  never  made  any  such  remark,  neither 
directly  nor  by  implication,  to  any  person  at 
all. 

Mr.  Bj'obson. — May  I  ask  you  a  question  ? 
You  say  you  had  some  conversation  with 
Professor  Swing  in  regard  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment ?  Did  you  ever  hear  him  use  the  word 
"eclecticism"  in  relation  to  the  matter  ? 

A.  Well,  that  was  one  of  the  points  on 
which  I  did  not  know  what  he  really  meant, 
and  which  he  explained  to  me. 

Q.  Do  you  know  what  he  means  by  that 
expression  ? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  he  understands, 
in  the  use  of  that  term,  that  he  has  a  right 
to  pick  out  one  word  of  the  Bible  which  he 
does  not  like,  and  throw  it  aside,  and  then 
select  something  or  other  that  will  meet  his 
views  and  feelings  better  than  that  one? 

A.  No,  sir.  I  understood  him  to  say 
this,  that  by  eclecticism  he  means  not  that 
we  might  select  some  part  as  inspired,  and 
cast  aside  some  other  part  as  uninspired  ; 
but  that  he  thought  some  parts  of  the  Old 
Testament  had  answered  their  direct  uses, 
and  were  superseded  by  the  New  Testament; 
and  in  that  sense  he  uses  the  term  "eclecti- 
cism"— an  eclecticism  of  use  or  application; 
not  in  regard  to  inspiration. 

Q.  Well,  with  regard  to  that  part  of  the 
Old  Testament  which  speaks  of  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  surrounding  heathen  nations,  did 
he  say  that  he  thought  that  was  worse  than 
some  of  the  cruelties  practiced  by  the  In- 
dians upon  their  prisoners — something  of 
that  kind? 

A.  I  don't  recollect  any  expression  of 
that  kind.  But  I  do  recollect  that  he  at  first 
expressed  himself  in  regard  to  the  impreca- 
tory psalms  in  a  way  that  raised  some  ques- 


tion in  my  mind  as  to  what  he  meant ;  and 
afterwards,  when  I  conversed  with  him  ful- 
ly, I  was  satisfied  there  was  no  ground  for 
any  doubt  in  regard  to  that  point.  He  ex- 
pressed himself  by  saying  he  thought  our 
Saviour  had  repealed  the  imprecatory  psalms 
in  their  application  to  Christians.  And  I 
understood  him  as  making  a  comparison  be- 
tween the  treatment  of  that  subject  by  our 
Saviour,  and  his  treatment  of  the  law  of  di- 
vorce which  was  given  by  Moses ;  and  al- 
though I  did  not  agree  with  him  exactly  in 
regard  to  the  use  of  the  word  "repeal,"  I 
thought  his  idea  was  substantially  correct. 
Q.  Well,  did  he  seem  to  convey  the  idea — 
The  Moderator. — In  the  judgment  of  the 
Moderator  this  subject  has  now  been  suffi- 
ciently drawn  out.  There  must  be,  evidently, 
some  limit  in  questions. 

Dr.  Blackburn. — I  would  like  to  ask  Dr. 
Patterson : 

Q.  When  you  understood  Professor  Swing 
to  hold  the  Deity  of  Christ,  did  you  under- 
stand him  to  hold  the  Sabellian  view  of  the 
Deity  of  Christ? 

A.  I  asked  him  on  one  occasion  explicitly 
about  that ;  he  said  he  did  not  hold  the  Sa- 
bellian view ;  that  it  was  a  mysterious  sub- 
ject, and  he  did  not  undertake  to  define  the 
Trinity,  but  that  he  thought  there  was,  as  I 
understood  him,  a  foundation  in  the  divine 
nature  for  the  distinction  of  Father,  Son  and 
Holy  Spirit. 

Q.  Perhaps  I  may  be  repeating  the  ques- 
tion ;  but,  did  you  understand  that  distinc- 
tion to  be  the  modal  one  or  a  personal  one  ? 

A.  I  understood  it  to  be  a  distinction  in 
the  divine  nature,  and  not  merely  in  the 
form  of  manifestation. 

Mr.  Wood. — I  simply  want  to  ask  the 
Doctor  whether  he  has  had  any  conversation 
with  Mr.  Leonard,  an  elder  of  the  Ninth 
Church,  in  his  office  at  No.  70  La  Salle  St. 

A.  I  have  had  various  conversations  with 
him.  I  do  not  remember  any  conversation 
with  regard  to  Professor  Swing. 

Q.  In  the  office  in  which  the  general  con- 
versation— perhaps  I  may  not  say  the  gen- 
eral conversation  because  I  do  not  know  all 
about  it ;  but  in  which  the  point  concerning 
the  imprecatory  psalms  was  being  spoken 
about  ? 

A.  I  may  have  had  such  a  conversation, 
but  I  have  no  recollection  of  it  now. 

Testitnony  read  and  approved  by  witness. 

(Signed,)  Pv.  W.  Pattekso:!. 


TESTIMONY  OF  WITNESSES. 


29 


Rev.  James  H.  Trowbridge  was  sworn, 
and  being  examined  by  Prof.  Patton,  testi- 
fied as  follows : 

Q. — Is  that  your  hand  writing  ?  [Hand- 
ing paper  to  witness.] 

A. — Yes,  sir. 

Prof.  Patton  then  read  the  paper  as  fol- 
lows : 

"  OflSce  of  the  Interior,  151  West  Wash- 
"  ington  street,  Chicago,  October  2,  1872. 
Eev.  Jno.  Crosier  : 

Dear  Bro  : — Yours  containing  $2.00  is  re- 
"ceived.  As  to  Brother  Swing's  sermon,  the 
"notice  of  it  was  taken  from  the  report  in 
'T/te  Times,  and  how  much  it  was  obscured 
"or  misrepresented  I  do  not  know.  Swing 
"is  a  queer  genius.  He  probably  would  not 
"let  us  have  his  MS.  We,  who  know  and 
^^love  him,  believe  he  is  all  right  at  bottom, 
"and  yet  he  troubles  us  a  good  deal  by  his 
'^dubious  or  one-sided  statement  of  things. 
"But  he  gets  hold  of  men  that  no  one  else 
"can  reach,  and  we  don't  wish  to  harrass  so 
"able  and  good  a  brother,  unless  we  are  com- 
"pelled  to.  I  don't  know  but  he  will  force 
"the  Presbytery  to  call  him  to  account,  but  I 
^'knoia  he  regards  himself  as  orthodox. 
"Yours,  fraternally, 

"J.  H.  Trowbridge." 

CROSS-EXAMINED. 

By  Rev.  Mr.  Swing. — Where  do  you  re- 
side, Mr.  Trowbridge? 

A.  I  reside  at  Kiverside,  at  the  present 
time,  sir. 

Pj-of.  Swing. — That  is  all. 

Mr.  Noyes. — I  have  not  the  slightest  dis- 
position to  be  captious  in  this  matter,  but  I 
really  do  not  think  that  the  letter  which  was 
read  here  is  evidence,  or  that  it  ought  to  be 
regarded  as  such ;  it  is  simply  a  personal 
opinion,  a  criticism,  which  may  have  been 
made  upon  a  very  partial  and  inadequate  un- 
derstanding of  the  facts. 

Prof.  Paiton. — I  can  explain,  Mr.  Modera- 
tor. By  the  way,  we  have  had  a  good  deal 
of  personal  opinion  in  the  cross-examination 
of  Dr.  Patterson. 

Mr.  Noyes. — Simply  as  drawing  out  the 
evidence. 

Prof.  Patton. — The  evidence  is  simply  this : 
The  allegation — the  second  specification,  sets 
forth  that  Mr.  Swing  has  excited  great 
•doubts — the  effect  of  his  preaching  is  to 
cause  grave  doubts  to  be  entertained  by  his 
ministerial  brethren.     And  the  object  I  had 


in  view  in  calling  Dr.  Patterson  to  testify, 
and  in  producing  the  letter  of  Mr.  Trow- 
bridge, was  to  sustain  that  specification.  The 
evidence  is  certainly  competent  to  do  that. 

Mr.  Trowbridge. — I  would  like  to  ask 
whether  the  witness  is  permitted  to  say  any- 
thing except  in  answer  to  questions — to  ex- 
plain. 

Dr.  Patterson. — I  would  ask  Mr.  Trow- 
bridge what  he  has  to  say  in  addition  to 
what  he  has  already  said. 

The  Moderator. — The  Moderator  would 
rule  that  the  witness  has  a  right  to  state  any- 
thing which  he  considers  to  be  essential  to 
the  correct  understanding  of  the  testimony 
which  he  is  asked  to  give. 

Mr.  Trowbridge. — I  wish  to  say  only  two 
things,  Mr.  Moderator,  and  not  those  unless 
it  is  proper.  One,  the  first,  is  that  I  occu- 
pied at  that  time  the  unfortunate  position 
now  occupied  by  the  prosecutor  in  this  case, 
as  editor  of  The  Interior ;  and  the  second, 
that  the  letter  was  written  a  year  and  a-half 
ago,  when  I  did  not  understand  Brother 
Swing  as  well  as  I  do  now,  or  think  I  do. 

Testimony  read,  and  approved  by  witness. 
[Signed]  J.  H.  Trowbridge, 

Rev.  Arthur  Sivazey,  D.D.,  was  sworn,  and, 
being  examined  by  Professor  Patton,  testi- 
fied as  follows : 

Q.  Dr.  Swazey,  did  Prof.  Swing  preach 
the  sermon  at  your  installation  at  Ashland 
avenue,  as  pastor  of  that  church  ? 

A.     He  did. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  the  subject  of  his 
discourse  ? 

A.  I  do,  sir ;  I  do  not  recollect  the  text, 
but  I  remember  the  topic  very  well. 

Q.  You  remember  the  subject,  you  say, 
sir? 

A.     I  remember  the  topic  very  well. 

Q.     What  was  it  then  ? 

A.  The  topic  was  the  Christian  Ministry; 
and  more  particularly  a  certain  idea  in  con- 
nection with  it. 

Q.     What  idea  was  that  ? 

A.  Well,  not  one  alone,  but  two.  Prof. 
Swing  was  getting  at  the  influences  set  at 
work  in  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven.  Perhaps 
I  shall  misrepresent  him,  but  I  under- 
stood him  to  aifirm  distinctly,  (as  I  under- 
stood him)  the  divine  authority  of  the  Chris- 
tian Ministry.  He  began  to  dig  under  things 
a  little  and  see  what  there  was  in  human 
society,   and   what  there  might  be  in  the 


80 


THE  TRIAL  OF  REV.  DAVID  SWING. 


wants  of  man,  which  naturally  brought 
about  such  an  order  of  things,  or  the  order 
of  men  as  the  Christian  Ministry,  and  in  the 
course  of  it  he  discussed  what  is  sometimes 
called  a  call  to  the  ministry ;  when  a  man 
says  "  I  have  a  call  to  preach ;"  I  mean  that 
kind  of  a  call.  I  do  not  mean  any  other 
call, — and  made  some  remarks  upon  it  which 
I  thought  were  very  just  and  appropriate. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  the  substance  of 
what  he  said — the  general  doctrine  that  he 
taught  ? 

A.     In  regard  to  that  point? 

Q.     Yes,  sir. 

A.  I  think  I  do.  I  should  not  dare  to 
affirm  contrary  to  the  memory  of  any  one 
else,  but  I  think  it  was  this  :  And,  indeed,  I 
am  quite  sure  that  there  were  persons  who 
seemed  to  think  that  they  had  a  special  call. 
He  spoke,  not  of  the  real  call  of  God,  but  of 
the  superstition  and  idea — as  where  a  man 
gets  up  some  morning  and  says,  "  I  have  got 
a  call  to  preach ;"  that  the  real  call  was  not 
of  that  order ;  at  least,  so  I  understood  him. 

Q.  Did  he  say  anything — did  he  draw  an 
analogy  between  the  ministry  and  the  pro- 
fessions of  life  ? 

A.     He  did,  sir,  if  I  remember  right. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  any  of  his  illustra- 
tions, or  the  course  of  that  analogy  ? 

A.  I  do ;  but  how  accurately,  I  would 
hardly  be  willing  to  affirm.  I  remember 
this  much:  He  took  the  ground  that  the 
Christian  ministry  could  not  die  out ;  that  it 
was  rooted  into  the  very  wants  of  human  so- 
ciety ;  and  if  there  were  no  provision  made 
of  a  divine  character  for  an  order  of  men  to 
preach,  there  would  be  nevertheless  such  an 
order;  it  could  not  die  out. 

Q.  On  what  basis  did  the  Christian  min- 
istry rest,  according  to  your  recollection  of 
that  sermon  ? 

A.  I  don't  know  as  I  understand  your 
question,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  understand  him  to  teach  that 
the  Christian  ministry  is  a  divine  ordinance? 

A.  I  understood  him  to  be  discussing  that 
particular  question,  but  I  understood  him  to 
affirm  and  to  assume — I  cannot  say  posi- 
tively that  he  affirmed  it,  but  he  assumed  it, 
certainly,  (to  me.)  I  will  say — if  it  is  proper 
for  anyone  to  say  anything  beyond  the  ques- 
tion, that  when  I  heard  doubts  raised  about 
the  orthodoxy  of  that  discourse,  I  was  some- 
what taken  by  surprise.  I  think  I  know 
what  the  common  idea  of  the  divine  author- 


ity of  the  Christian  ministry  is,  and  I  did 
not  hear  anything  at  that  time  which  led  me 
to  raise  any  question  on  that  point. 

Q.  Would  his  sermon  be  in  harmony  with 
this  provision  :  "  Unto  this  Catholic,  visible 
church  of  Christ,  his  common  ministry,  ora- 
cles, and  ordinances  of  God,  for  the  gather- 
ing and  perfecting  of  saints  in  this  life  to 
the  end  of  the  world  ?" 

A.  So  far  as  I  understood,  it  would  en- 
tirely. Here  I  will  say  to  the  prosecutor 
that  I  have  looked  at  the  words  he  has  just 
spoken,  to  see  whether  the. words  even  would 
seem  to  contradict  my  ideas  of  his  discourse. 

Jtev.  Dr.  Patterson:  1  would  like  to  ask 
Dr.  Swazey  a  question,  whether  he  recollects 
that  Dr.  Robert  Patterson,  after  the  sermon 
in  his  charge  spoke,  not  only  in  a  compli- 
mentary way,  but  expressed  gratification  in 
regard  to  the  sermon  to  which  the  congrega- 
tion had  listened. 

A.  I  do  not  know  that  I  did  in  any  way 
peculiar  ;  I  remember  this :  that  there  was 
general  gratification  expressed,  not  only  by 
myself,  but  by  others.  I  am  not  sure,  but  I 
think  that  Brother  Mitchell  gave  a  kind  of 
semi-approbation,  as  he  gave  his  charge  to 
me,  of  what  he  heard,  not  in  way  of  appro- 
bation, but  of  general  satisfaction  and  enjoy- 
ment. I  remember  of  Robert  Patterson  ex- 
pressing gratification  ;  but  upon  what  point 
I  do  not  at  this  moment  recall. 

Rev.  Mr.  Trowbridge :  Did  he  express 
any  dissatisfaction  with  any  part  of  it  ? 

A.     Dr.  Robert  Patterson? 

Q.     Yes,  sir. 

A.  He  expressed  general  satisfaction,  but 
I  may  have  misapprehended  Dr.  Patterson's 
question.  I  suppose,  from  the  shape  of  his 
question,  that  he  meant  on  the  point  at  is- 
sue— whether  he  expressed  anything  which 
would  indicate  any  judgment  or  conviction 
about  the  authority  of  the  Christian  min- 
istry. 

Rev.  Dr.  Patterson:  I  mean  whether  he 
expressed  general  satisfaction  with  the  ser- 
mon? 

A.  He  did,  sir ;  I  remember  that ;  or 
that  is  my  impression  at  any  rate. 

Mr.  Wakeman:  Did  he  express  anything 
that  would  lead  you  to  suppose  that  he  did 
not  believe  that  God  by  a  special  Providence 
led  men  into  the  ministry  ? 

A.  Well,  I  have  heard  a  great  many 
sermons  upon  the  Christian  ministry,  and  I 
never  heard  any  sermon  that  seemed  to  m© 


TESTIMONY  OF  WITNESSES. 


81 


to  go  more  nearly  to  the  New  Testament 
basis.  But  I  see  how  anybody  who  had  a 
peculiar  kind  of  thought  about  it — about 
preaching — should  raise  some  sort  of  a  ques- 
tion, viz.  :  because  he  was  digging  under, 
and  getting  at  the  radical  idea  of  human 
walks  of  society ;  and  it  never  occurred  to 
me,  and  I  do  not  believe  it  did  to  any  other 
intelligent  and  unprejudiced  person  in  the 
room. 

Prof.  Switicf :  Brother  Swazej'-,  did  it  not 
seem  to  be  the  effort  of  the  preacher  to  find 
the  reason  why  God  called  a  man  into  the 
ministry  ? 

A.     I  so  understood  it. 

Q.  It  has  been  thought  by  some  that 
opening  a  Bible  and  finding  a  certain  text, 
or  wearing  a  white  cravat,  constitutes  a 
minister  ;  did  I  not  try  to  find  a  broader 
basis  than  that  ? 

A.     I  so  understood  it. 

Testimony  read,  and  approved  hy  xoiiness. 
(Signed,)  Arthur  Swazey. 

W.  C.  Goudy,  Esq.,  was  sworn  and,  being 
examined  by  Prof.  Patton,  testified  as  fol- 
lows : 

Q.  Mr.  Goudy,  did  you  ever  hear  Prof. 
Swing  deliver  a  discourse  on  the  subject  of 
the  Christian  ministry  ? 

A.     I  did. 

Q.     "Where  was  that  delivered,  sir  ? 

A.     At  Standard  Hall. 

Q.  Will  you  be  kind  enough  to  state  to 
the  Presbytery  the  idea  of  that  sermon  so  far 
as  you  remember  it  ? 

A.  Mr.  Swing  set  out  to  describe  the 
organization  of  society,  its  division  into  clas- 
ses, and  the  selection  by  difl'erent  members 
of  society  of  avocations  and  pursuits.  He 
spoke  of  the  selection  of  a  profession  by  the 
lawyer,  or  the  business  of  the  merchant  and 
others,  and  also  of  the  minister.  I  understood 
him  to  say  that  the  minister  selected  his  pur- 
suit in  life  in  the  same  way  that  the  lawyer 
selected  his  and  the  merchant  his,  for  the 
purpose  of  fulfilling  his  duty  to  society  as  a 
minister ;  and  that  each  was  bound  to  work 
according  to  his  opportunity  for  the  welfare 
and  happiness  of  mankind.  I  also  understood 
him  to  ridicule  the  idea  of  a  call  to  the  min- 
istry; whether  a  special  call  or  not,  I  am  not 
now  able  to  say,  but  it  was  language  of  rid- 
icule against  the  idea  that  any  man  had  a  call 
to  preach.  He  also,  according  to  my  recol- 
lection of  it,  ridiculed  the  ordinance  by  which 
the  minister  was  ordained  to  preach.     The 


language  by  which  this  was  done,  I  cannot 
undertake  to  repeat  from  recollection.  It  is 
only  the  general  points  of  the  sermon  that  I 
remember. 

Q.  If  you  were  to  be  governed  in  your 
views  of  the  Christian  ministry  by  the  teach- 
ings of  that  sermon,  what  would  you  believe 
respecting  Christianity  generally ;  what 
would  be  your  opinion  of  it? 

A.  Well,  sir,  I  don't  know  that  I  can 
answer  that,  it  being  a  mere  matter  of  opin- 
ion. I  understood  him  to  preach  the  doctrine 
that  the  minister  was  just  like  anybody  else 
in  selecting  his  pursuit,  except  that  he 
claimed  that  the  minister — the  occupation,  or 
the  pursuit  of  the  minister  was — the  most 
important  in  society  ;  it  was  the  highest  in 
grade  because  its  opportunities  were  higher  ; 
compared  it  with  the  influence  of  the  press, 
if  I  remember  right,  and  other  professions 
and  business  ;  and  that  it  had  access  to  the 
ear  of  everybody;  and  from  the  opportunities 
it  had,  it  was  the  highest  in  rank  of  all  the 
difl'erent  pursuits  and  professions  of  life, 

Q.  You  understood  that,  then,  to  exhaust 
the  idea  of  the  ministry  as  taught  by  him  ? 

A.     Well,  that  is  what  he  said. 

CROSS   EXAMINED   BY  PROF.  SWING. 

Q.  I  would  ask  Brother  Goudy,  Did  I  not 
state  the  reason  that  the  hands  of  the  pul- 
piteer were  so  valuable  was  because  the  hands 
of  all  society  were  resting  upon  his  head 
beyond  the  pulpit  ? 

A.     I  don't  remember  that  expression. 

Q.  I  am  sorry.  Do  you  think  that 
Washington  was  called  to  be  the  leader  in 
the  American  republic — was  called  of  God. 

A.  Well,  sir,  I  cannot  pretend  to  express 
any  opinion  upon  that.  It  is  a  question  of 
ethics  that  I  do  not  pretend  to  testify  about, 
I  will  testify  to  any  fact  that  I  know. 

Q.  I  think  my  idea  was,  was  it  not,  that 
God  calls  every  man  to  his  ofiice. 

A.     I  think  that  idea  was  held  out. 

Q.  But  that  this  calling  of  the  clergyman 
was  the  highest  and  holiest  because  it  was 
the  highest  ofl5ce  ? 

A.  I  understood  it  to  be  distinctly  stated 
that  the  office  of  the  clergyman  was  the  high- 
est in  the  grade  or  rank  of  any  other  pursuit 
in  life. 

Mr.  Noyes. — You  understood  the  defendant 
in  this  case,  Mr.  Goudy,  to  state  that  God 
called  every  man  to  his  work  ? 

A.     Yes,  sir  ;  and  that  every  man  had  his 


32 


THE  TEIAL  OF  KEY.  DAVID  SWING 


position  assigned  to  him  in  society,  behaving 
the  option  as  to  what  he  should  elect  to  do — 
determine  for  himself. 

Q.  And  that,  therefore,  God  called  men 
to  the  ministry  ? 

A.  In  the  same  way  that  the  merchant 
and  the  lawyer  were  called  to  theirs. 

Q.  But  still  it  was  God  who  called  him  to 
the  ministry  ? 

A.  Well,  sir,  I  cannot  say  that.  I  un- 
derstood it  to  be  that  every  man  of  his  own 
choice  selected  his  own  pursuit.  I  did  not 
understand  that  he  repudiated  the  idea  of 
providential  direction  at  all  or  any  of  them. 

Q.  Did  you  understand  him  to  repudiate 
the  idea  of  any  spiritual  direction  ? 

A.     I  did. 

Q.-    Or  influence? 

A.     I  did. 

Q.  In  what  way,  then,  did  you  understand 
him  to  say  that  God  called  men  into  this  pro- 
fession or  that ;  how  did  he  call  them  ? 

A.  Simply  in  the  way  that  all  human 
affairs  are  directed  by  God. 

Q.  Well,  did  you  understand  him  to  teach 
doctrines  on  that  point  in  conflict  with  the 
Confession  of  Eaith  which  we  have  heard  ? 

A.  I  don't  know,  sir,  what  the  articles  of 
the  Confession  of  Faith  are  on  that  question. 

Q.  You  were  in  the  house  when  the  pro- 
secutor read  from  the  Confession  of  Faith  on 
that  point  ? 

A.     I  did  not  hear  it,  sir. 

Q.  I  understand  you  to  say,  Mr.  Goudy, 
then,  that  the  doctrine  of  that  sermon  was 
that  God  called  men  to  the  ministry  ? 

A.  I  repeat  again  that  I  understood  him 
to  say  that  the  minister  selected  his  pursuit 
precisely  as  the  merchant  or  the  lawyer  se- 
lected his. 

Q.  You  testified  a  minute  ago  that  you 
understood  him  to  say  that  God  called  every 
man  to  his  work,  of  whatever  sort  it  may 
be? 

A.     As  God  directs  all  human  affairs. 

Q.  Well,  if  he  taught  that  doctrine  then, 
you  certainly  understood  him  to  teach  tha. 
God  called  men  to  the  ministry  ? 

A.  I  understood  him  to  ridicule  the  idea 
that  any  man  had  a  call  to  the  ministry. 

Q.     How  could  that  be? 

A.  I  remember  now  that  he  referred  to 
the  case — told,  perhaps,  an  ancedote  or  sup- 
position that  some  young  man  opened  the 
Bible  and  read  a  passage,  and  immediately 
considered  that  his  attention  waa   called  to 


that  verse  by  God,  and  therefore  it  was  a 
divine  revelation  to  him,  and  he  must,  there- 
fore, if  he  read  :  "  Go  speak  the  gospel  to  all 
the  people,"  think  that  he  was  called  to 
preach. 

Q.  But  if  God  called  every  man  to  his 
work,  how  could  the  sermon  teach  otherwise 
than  that  he  called  men  to  the  ministry  ? 

A.  I  am  not  theologian  enough  to  know 
the  difference  between  a  call  general  and  a 
call  special.  But  I  understood  him  to  dis- 
tinctly deny  that  God  had  any  special  or 
divine  agency  in  calling  or  setting  apart  any 
man  to  the  ministry. 

Q.  Did  I  understand  you  a  moment  ago 
to  say  that  he  calls  all  men  to  their  work  ; 
and,  if  so,  how  could  he  deny  that  he  called 
men  to  the  ministry  ?  The  larger  proposi- 
tion includes  the  less. 

A.  I  have  not  said  that  I  know,  and  I  do 
not  intend  to  say  that  he  called  all  men  to 
their  several  pursuits,  any  more  than  Provi- 
dence directs  and  controls  all  meii  in  their 
actions. 

Prof essor Swing . — I  think,  Mr.  Goudy,  that 
I  remember  now  the  illustration.  Did  I  not 
say  that  some  open  a  bible  saying  that  "what- 
ever verse  strikes  my  eye  1  will  now  follow  ; 
and  opening  the  bible  and  coming  to  these 
words :  "The  Lord  hath  need  of  me,"  he  con- 
sider? that  a  call  to  the  ministry.  Did  I  not 
ridicule  that  kind  of  a  call  ? 

A.     I  think  so. 

Q.  And  do  you  yourself  think  that  would 
be  a  genuine  call? 

A.  I  am  not  theologian  enough  to 
answer. 

Mr  Ely. — Mr.  Goudy,  I  understand  you  to 
say  that  Professor  Swing  in  this  sermon  ig- 
nored the  idea  of  an  inward  spiritual  call  to 
the  gospel ;  is  that  the  understanding — to  the 
ministry — an  inward  spiritual  call  to  the 
ministry  ? 

A.  That  question  is  more  refined  than  I 
am  able  to  answer.  I  can  only  say  that  he 
repudiated  the  idea,  as  I  understood  it,  that 
any  man  had  a  special  or  divine  call  to 
preach ;  but  placed  it  precisely  upon  the 
ground,  as  I  understood  it,  of  a  man  select- 
ing the  profession  of  the  law,  or  the  merchant 
of  the  sale  of  goods.  That  is  the  way  I  un- 
derstand it. 

Mr.  Brobston. — Did  you  get  the  idea  im- 
pressed upon  your  mind,  from  what  Mr. 
Swing  said  in  that  discourse  as  you  heard  it 


TESTIMONY  OF  WITNESSES 


83 


at  that  hall — did  you  get  the  idea  that  one 
man  is  just  as  good  as  another  with  regard  to 
the  ministry,  and  that  there  was  no  particu- 
lar impression  made  upon  his  mind,  or  influ- 
ence of  the  spirit  to  direct  him  about  his 
profession  ? 

A.  I  understood  that  there  was  no  par- 
ticular influence  brought  to  bear;  but  that  it 
was  in  society  the  top  of  the  heap. 

Q.  Just  as  a  man  that  in  some  mercantile 
business — he  has  a  disposition  to  engage  in 
that  business — or  a  blacksmith,  like  our  good 
brother — what's-his-name — take  hold  of  the 
anvil  and  sledge  hammer  and  when  the  iron 
is  vei'y  hot  and  heated  to  a  white, — he  would 
take  an  anvil  and  strike  it  down  ? 

A.  Well,  I  am  not  capable  to  make  an  an- 
alogy between  his  sermon  and  the  case  pro- 
posed. 

Rev.  Mr  Trowbridge. — I  would  like  to  ask 
whether  you  understand  that  to  be  the  same 
discourse  that  was  testified  to  as  having  been 
preached  at  Dr.  Swazey's  installation. 

A.  I  did  not  hear  the  sermon  preached  at 
Dr.  Swazey's  installation. 

Q.     You  heard  something  said  about  it  ? 

A.  If  I  take  Dr.  Swazey's  description  of 
the  sermon  as  I  heard  him  tell  about  it,  and 
the  one  that  I  heard,  I  should  say  it  was  a 
difi'erent  sermon. 

Q.  Well,  sir,  so  should  I,  and  therefore  I 
want  to  find  out  whether  it  was  the  same  ser- 
mon or  not. 

A.  You  have  the  same  means  of  judging 
that  I  have. 

Q.  Of  course,  I  don't  expect  you  to  testify 
to  anything  you  don't  know. 

Rev.  J.  F.  Matthews. — I  understand  you  to 
say  that  you  understood  Porfessor  Swing  to 
say  that  the  minister  chose  his  profession  be- 
cause he  considered  it  his  duty  to  do  so  ? 

A.     No,  sir. 

Q.  Well,  I  will  take  the  report,  I  think 
the  official  reporter's  notes  will  verify  me  in 
my  impression.  I  would  like  to  know 
whether  I  am  mistaken  or  not. 

A.  I  don't  remember  whether  I  used  the 
word. 

The  official  reporter  read  the  witness'  testi- 
mony on  the  point  referred  to. 

Q.  Isn't  it  probable — do  not  many  minis- 
ters enter  the  ministry,  evidently  because 
they  considered  it  their  duty  to  society ;  and 
that  this  sense  of  duty  comes  from  the  spirit 
of  God? 

A,     I  am  not  a  minister,  and  I  do  not 


know  what  influences  their  minds  when  they 
enter. 

Q.  Isn't  it  very  probable  that  that  would 
be  considered  a  definite  call  ? 

A.  When  I  selected  my  own  profession,  I 
followed  what  I  conceived  to  be  my  convic- 
tions of  duty  to  society. 

Mr.  Wakeman. — Was  it  the  idea  of  Mr. 
Swing  that  in  both  of  these  cases,  of  the 
minister  and  the  lawyer,  that  each  should 
decide  it  as  a  matter  of  duty? 

A.     That  is  the  way  I  understood  it. 

Mr.  Matthews.— WhAt  did  Prof.  Swing, 
according  to  your  remembrance,  teach  upon 
that  point? 

That  is  what  I  want  to  get  at. 

A.  I  understood  him  to  say  that  every 
member  of  society  had  certain  obligations  to 
the  other  members  of  society  ;  that  he  had  a 
duty  in  life  to  perform,  and  a  work  before 
him,  and  that  the  minister  selected  his  pro. 
fession  in  order  to  fulfill  that  duty,  precisely 
as  the  other  people  selected  theirs. 

Rev.  R.  W.  Patterson.  —  Mr.  Goudy,  I 
would  like  to  ask  whether  you  understood 
Prof.  Swing  as  repudiating  the  idea  of  a  call 
to  the  ministry  in  any  other  sense  than  this  : 
That  he  repudiated  the  notion  of  some  special 
impression  being  made  upon  the  mind  of  a 
man  aside  from  his  circumstances  and  the 
indications  of  Providence,  to  lead  him  into 
the  ministry? 

A.  I  understood  it  to  be  more  than  that, 
sir. 

Rev.  Dr.  Swazey. —  I  would  like  to  ask, 
Mr.  Goudy — I  am  not  sure  we  heard  the  same 
sermons — but  if  in  the  sermon  that  you  heard 
there  was  any  distinction  made,  I  mean  by 
implication  between  the  call  and  the  divine 
authority  of  the  order  of  the  ministry  ? 

A.     I  don't  understand  that  question. 

Q.  Let  me  explain ;  a  man  enters  into 
the  Episcopal  ministry,  if  you  please,  that  is 
supposed  to  have  a  peculiar  sanction,  and  he 
receives  his  authority  when  he  enters  by  the 
laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  bishop,  now, 
he  is  moved  before  he  goes  in,  by  some 
authority  ;  he  has  a  kind  of  a  call  to  the 
Episcopal  ministry  beyond  that  which  he 
derives  from  the  bishop.  I  want  to  know 
now  whether,  according  to  your  understand- 
ing, you  noticed  in  the  discussion,  any  dis- 
tinction between  the  authority  of  the  Chris- 
tian ministry  and  the  call  of  which  you 
have  been  speaking  ? 


34 


THE  TKIAL  OF  KEV.  DAVID  SWING. 


A.  I  understood  him  to  repudiate  the 
idea  of  any  special  action  of  God  in  calling  a 
man  to  preach  ;  and  afterward  he  alluded  to 
the  ordinance  itself  by  which  a  man  was  or- 
dained ;  but  I  do  not  remember  the  precise 
words,  but  I  remember  that  he  ridiculed  it 
and  held  out  his  hands  and  said  "just  as 
if  any  virtue  dropped  through  the  fingers  in 
the  ordination  service."  I  understood  him 
to  repudiate  the  idea  that  there  was  any  ordi- 
nance which  had  any  virtue  in  it. 

Tesihnony  read  ajid  approved  by  witness. 
(Signed,)  W.  C.  Goudy. 

Rev.  Dr.  Patterson.  —  I  do  not  know 
whether  it  would  be  in  place  or  not,  but  I 
suppose  the  Presbytery  would  indulge  the 
question  to  Prof.  Swing  himself,  whether 
this  was  the  same  sermon  that  was  preached 
at  the  installation  of  Dr.  Swazey. 

The  Moderator. — If  there  is  no  objection  to 
that  question  being  asked,  it  may  be  done. 

Prof.  Swing. — It  was  the  same  sermon,  and 
I  am  sorry  I  have  not  a  copy  of  it.  I  do  not 
remember  definitely  what  was  in  it,  and 
hence  I  would  not  want  to  intimate  that  Mr. 
Goudy  has  not  given  the  purport  of  it.  I 
could  not  say — I  have  not  got  it. 

The  Presbytery  then  adjourned  to  meet  on 
Wednesday,  May  6th  inst.,  at  10  A.M. 

Closed  with  prayer. 


Wednesday  6th,  10  o'clock  A.M. 

The  Presbytery  met  and  was  opened  with 
prayer  by  the  Moderator. 

After  preliminary  business. 

Henry  G.Miller,  Esq., was  sworn,  and  being 
examined  by  Professor  Patton,  testified  as 
follows  : 

Q,  Are  you  a  member  of  the  Fourth 
Church  ? 

A.     No,  sir  ;  I  am  not. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  been  a  member  of  the 
Fourth  Church  ? 

A.  I  was  a  member  of  the  North  Church 
prior  to  the  union  of  the  North  and  West- 
minster Churches. 

Q.  Did  your  membership  continue  after 
the  union  ? 

A.  It  was  terminated  very  shortly  after 
the  union  of  the  two  churches. 

Q.  Up  to  what  time  were  you  a  hearer 
of  Professor  Swing  ? 

A.     I  think  it  was  about  June,  1871. 

Q.  During  the  course  of  your  member- 
ship in  that  church  under  his  preaching,  did 


you  ever  hear  him  preach  a  sermon  on  the 
subject  of  the  Christian  Ministry? 

A.     Not  during  that  time. 

Q.  Mr.  Miller,  would  you  be  kind  enough 
to  state  the  doctrine  of  that  sermon  ?  Did 
I  understand  you  to  say  you  heard  that  ser- 
mon? 

A.  He  did  not  preach  such  a  sermon 
while  I  was  a  member  of  that  church. 

Q.     You  had  left  the  church  ? 

A.  I  heard  him  preach  a  sermon  at  Stand- 
ard Hall  during  the  month  of  December, 
1871,  or  the  month  of  January,  1872.  In 
this  discourse  the  subject  of  the  ministerial 
calling  was  a  prominent  one,  and  I  think  it 
was  the  leading  subject  of  the  discourse  ;  I 
think  it  was  the  only  topic. 

Q.  Be  kind  enough,  Mr.  Miller,  to  state 
the  doctrine  of  that  sermon,  to  the  best  of 
your  recollection,  as  it  effects  the  Christian 
ministry. 

A.  I  cannot,  from  recollection,  reproduce 
the  frame- work  of  the  discourse  so  as  to  con- 
vey to  the  mind,  perhaps,  the  way  in  which 
the  topic  was  treated.  The  substance  of  it 
was — to  state  in  few  words — that  a  call  to 
the  ministry  was  rather  determined  by  the 
natural  fitness  of  the  person  for  that  voca- 
tion than  anything  else. 

P7-of  Patton. — Proceed,  Mr.  Miller. 

A.  That  was  the  aspect  in  which  it  was 
presented  in  that  discourse.  The  idea  of  the 
Divine  appointment  and  consecration — Di- 
vine consecration  to  this  office — was  not  re- 
ferred to,  as  I  recollect  it,  and  the  discourse 
was  of  a  nature  which  would  lead  me  to 
suppose  that  he  was  not  taking  any  special 
view  of  the  subject,  but  rather  covering  the 
whole  ground.  In  other  words,  the  minis- 
terial call  was  regarded  or  treated  as  of  the 
same  character  as  the  call  of  any  person  to 
any  professional  pursuit,  and  therefore  it 
was  determined  more  by  the  natural  fitness 
of  the  person  for  that  pursuit,  as  he  could 
discover  it,  than  anything  else. 

Q.  Was  there  any  distinct  analogy  be- 
tween the  other  professions  of  life  and  the 
Christian  Ministry  ? 

A.  Other  professions  were  spoken  of — 
the  call  of  a  lawyer  to  his  profession,  and  a 
merchant  to  his — although  that,  perhaps,  is 
not  a  profession,  but  they  were  spoken  of  in 
the  same  way  and  in  the  same  light. 

Q.  Was  there  any  reference  in  that  ser- 
mon to  the  idea  that  the  origin  of  the  Christ- 
ian Ministry  is  the  result  of  a  division  of 


TESTIMONY  OF  WITNESSES. 


85 


labor — that  the  necessity  of  the  case  called 
for  a  cliiss  of  men  to  be  ministers  ?  Was  there 
any  idea  of  that  sort? 

A.  There  may  have  been,  and  I  think  he 
did  state  that  the  necessities  of  society  orig- 
inated this  division  of  labor.  He  rather 
gave  a  secular  view  of  it. 

Cross-exa')nination  waived. 

Rev.  Dr.  Swazey. — I  would  like  to  ask  Mr. 
Miller  a  question.  Did  you  understand  Pro- 
fessor Swing,  in  that  sermon,  to  make  a  dis- 
tinction between  the  call  to  the  ministry  and 
the  order  of  the  ministry  ? 

A.  I  don't  recollect  of  his  alluding  to  the 
subject  of  the  order  of  the  ministry. 

Rev.  Mr.  Trowbridge. — Please  state,  in 
your  recollection,  whether  Mr.  W.  C.  Goudy 
was  present  on  that  occa.«ion. 

A.  I  don't  know  whether  he  was  present 
or  not. 

Rev.  Glenn  Wood. — I  would  like  to  ask 
if  you  understood  from  that  discourse  that 
Mr.  Swing  conveyed  the  idea  that  God 
directs  all  men  who  look  to  Him  for  direc- 
tion, and  that  a  Christian  man  has  as  much 
reason  to  expect  God  will  direct  him  to  any 
line  of  business,  as  the  man  who  may  be  di- 
rected to  the  ministry  has  to  expect  that  God 
will  direct  him  there  ? 

A.  I  do  not  think  the  subject  was  brought 
out  in  that  way  at  all. 

Q.  I  want  to  know  whether  the  subject 
was  treated  in  a  way  that  gave  you  that 
idea. 

A.  My  idea  about  it  was  that  everything 
of  a  divine  nature  was  eliminated,  or  left 
out,  and  it  was  presenting  the  subject  in  a 
view  that  I  had  never  been  accustomed  to 
regard  it. 

Q.  Allow  me  to  ask  the  question,  was 
not  the  subject  so  treated  as  to  convey  the 
idea  that  the  Divine  mind  manages  all  the 
affairs  of  men  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  that  was  not  the  idea  he  was 
endeavoring  to  impress,  as  I  understood  it. 
That  is  an  idea  that  is  frequently  enforced  by 
ministers. 

Rev.  Dr.  Patterson. — I  would  like  to  ask 
whether  there  was  anything  in  the  sermon 
inconsistent  with  the  idea  that  God  does  or- 
der the  affairs  of  men,  and  directs  them  all 
to  their  several  pursuits  ? 

A.  Well,  that  feature  of  the  Gospel  min- 
istry was  entirely  left  out.  I  do  not  know 
but  he  spoke  of  a  sense  in  which  men  were 
called  to  their  different  vocations,  but  it  was 


putting  all  professions  on  the  same  plane,  as 
I  regarded  it.  I  thought  that  was  the  lead- 
ing idea  of  the  discourse. 

Rev.  Mr.  Walker. — Was  it  the  idea  of  the 
discourse,  as  it  impressed  your  mind,  that 
what  impressed  a  Christian  man  to  enter  the 
ministry  was  the  want  in  society,  for  work  of 
that  kind  ? 

A.  Well,  he  may  have  alluded  to  these 
social  wants.  He  may  have  done  it  in  that 
way.  As  I  said  before,  I  would  not  attempt 
to  reproduce  the  sermon.  I  can  only  speak 
of  the  impression  which  it  produced  on  my 
own  mind,  as  I  now  recollect  it.  Of  course, 
if  the  sermon  had  been  printed  it  would  be 
much  more  valuable  to  the  Presbytery  than 
the  memory  of  witnesses  about  it ;  but  those 
were  my  ideas  about  the  sermon,  as  I  recol- 
lect it. 

Rev.  Dr.  Patterson. — Your  memory  is  not 
very  distinct  in  regard  to  it  ? 

A.  My  memory  is  pretty  distinct  in  re- 
spect to  what  I  have  stated  ;  I  think,  quite 
distinct. 

Q.  Suppose  a  man  had  not  a  natural  fit- 
ness for  the  ministry,  do  you  suppose  he  waa 
called  at  all  ? 

Q.     Do  I  suppose  ? 

Dr.  Patterson. — Yes. 

A.  I  would  not  attempt  to  answer  that 
question. 

Prof.  Swing. — I  have  learned,  indirectly, 
that  the  manuscript  of  the  sermon  was  given 
to  The  Inter-Oceayi  after  that  service,  and  it 
is  likely  that  the  old  files  of  The  Inter-Ocean 
would  produce  that  sermon.  My  impression, 
however,  is  that  Judge  Miller  is  cutting 
very  close  to  the  real  sermon. 

Rev.  Dr.  Halsey. — Did  the  sermon  contain 
the  idea  of  a  special  call  or  designation  to 
the  ministry  difiering  from  other  callings  ? 

A.  It  did  not,  as  I  recollect.  No  where 
in  the  sermon  was  any  such  distinction 
made. 

Rev.  Dr.  Hurd. — How  long  since  did  you 
hear  that  sermon  ? 

A.  I  think  it  was  in  December,  1871,  or 
January,  1872. 

Rev.  Mr.  Noyes. — Have  you  read  any  ab- 
stract of  it  ? 

A.     No,  sir. 

Q.     Recently,  or  at  any  time  ? 

A.     No,  sir. 

Elder  Barber. — I  would  like  to  ask  Mr. 
Miller  if  he  would  now  be  better  satisfied 
with  the  statements  of  the  sermon  as  printed, 


36 


THE  TKIAL  OF  KEY.  DAYID  SWING. 


than  on  his  own  memory  as  to  the  statements 
of  the  sermon. 

A.  Unless  the  sermon  as  printed  would 
convey  some  such  idea  as  I  am  trying  to 
convey,  I  would  not  be  satisfied  with  it,  be- 
cause my  recollection  of  it  is  very  distinct. 
Of  course,  men  might  draw  different  con- 
clusions ;  they  might  view  it  differently,  but 
that  is  the  way  I  received  it ;  that  is  all  I 
can  say, 

Tesiimony  read  and  approved  by  witness. 

(Signed,)  H.  G.  Miller. 

GEORGE  A.  SHUFELDT,  ESQ., 

was  then  sworn,  and  being  examined  by 
Professor  Patton,  testified  as  follows  : 

Q.  Will  you  be  kind  enough  to  tell  the 
Presbytery  whether  you  ever  received  a  let- 
ter from  Professor  Swing  in  respect  to  the 
five  points  of  Calvinism  ? 

A.  Well,  sir,  sometime  in  the  year  1867, 
or  the  early  part  of  1868,  I  published  an 
article  in  the  Chicago  Tribune,  criticising  a 
sermon  that  had  been  delivered  by  Professor 
Swing,  and  in  that  article  attacking  the 
dark  side  of  Calvinism.  Mr.  Swing  wrote 
me  a  personal  letter. 

Q.     Have  you  that  letter  ? 

A.  I  have  not — neither  of  them.  Several 
of  them  passed  between  us.  The  letters  were 
destroyed  in  the  fire  of  1871.  All  I  can  say 
about  it  now  is  my  recollection  and  impres- 
sion upon  the  subject. 

Q.  Will  you  be  kind  enough  to  give  us 
your  recollection  ? 

A.  Mr.  Swing  replied  to  that  published 
letter,  stating  that  a  public  discussion  of 
those  matters  would  probably  be  interesting 
neither  to  us  nor  to  the  public;  and  I  think 
he  said  if  I  had  anything  to  say  on  the  sub- 
ject he  would  be  glad  to  hear  from  me.  I 
then  wrote  him  another  letter,  in  which  I 
made  a  repetition  of  these  charges,  stating, 
as  I  remember,  that  to  me  the  Calvinistic 
doctrines,  while  they  might  have  been  toler- 
ated in  the  sixteenth  century,  were  unworthy 
of  the  intelligence  and  advanced  condition 
of  the  human  mind  to-day  ;  that  I  did  not 
understand  how  it  was  that  a  man  who  had 
a  ray  of  intelligence  could  believe  in  these 
things  ;  that  they  were  monstrous  to  man 
and  repulsive  to  God  ;  that  I  did  not  believe 
any  man  did  believe  them  unless  he  was 
schooled  in  the  ruts  of  a  dead  theology,  and 
had  not  reflection  enough  to  get  out  of  them. 
Mr.  Swing  answered  that  letter,  and  I  think 


he  drew  the  form  of  a  tree  grounded,  as  I 
recollect,  in  the  Christian  Church,  and  the 
body  of  the  tree  was  the  Christian  religion, 
and  the  branches  were  marked,  or  marked 
off  as  off-shoots,  these  doctrines  of  Calvinism ; 
among  others  was  predestination,  absolute 
total  depravity,  predestination  or  election, 
salvation  by  grace,  perseverance  of  the 
saints,  infant  damnation,  and  other  things 
which  were  out-growths.  He  enumerated, 
or  he  mentioned,  several  of  these  points 
which  he  had  long  since  repudiated.-  Which 
ones  these  were  I  do  not  now  remember  par- 
ticularly. I  think  that  he  denied  the  doc- 
trine of  the  absolute  total  depravity  of  man, 
if  there  is  a  qualification,  salvation  by  grace 
he  did  not  repudiate.  Infant  damnation  he 
did.  I  think  that  there  were  three  of  the 
points  that  were  repudiated. 

Q.  Was  there  any  reference  to  the  five 
points  of  Calvinism  ? 

A.  Well,  I  think  the  five  points  of  Cal- 
vinism were  embraced  within  the  branches 
of  this  tree. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  whether  he  dis- 
tinctly denied  one  or  more  of  these  five 
points  ? 

A.  Well,  I  think  that  Mr.  Swing  was 
speaking  in  defense  of  the  church,  from  the 
attacks  that  I  had  made  upon  it. 

Q.     The   question   is,  whether  he   denied 
one  or  more  of  the  five  points  of  Calvinism? 
A.     I   do   not   think   he    used  the   word 
"denied."       I    think     the    expression    was 
"long   since   repudiated,"   or    "long    since 
abandoned."     I  think  that  was  the  expres- 
sion :  "  long  since  abandoned." 
Q.     Long  since  abandoned  what  ? 
A.     I  think  that  was  the  expression,  "long 
since  abandoned." 

Q.  Do  I  understand  you  to  say  that  he 
affirmed  that  he  had  long  since  abandoned 
one  or  more  of  the  five  points  of  Calvinism? 
A.  Whether  the  expression  was  that  he 
had  long  since  abandoned  them,  or  whether 
they  had  been  long  since  abandoned,  I  should 
not  like  to  say. 

Q.     Was  the  thing  abandoned  one  of  the 
five  points  of  Calvinism  ? 
A.     Yes,  sir,  I  think  it  was. 
Q.     Do   you   know   how   many   of    those 
points  of  Calvinism  were  abandoned  ? 

A.  Well,  there  were  a  number  of  things 
on  this  tree  that  were  abandoned. 

Q.  Had  j'ou  ever  written  him  a  letter  de- 
tailing the  five  pointsof  Calvinism? 


TESTIMONY  OF  WITNESSES. 


37 


A.  Yes,  sir,  and  I  think  more  than  five 
points. 

Q.  Did  his  reply  refer  to  your  reference 
or  to  your  allusion  to  the  five  points  of  Cal- 
vinism ? 

A.     Yes,  sir,  I  think  it  did. 

Q.  Did  he  say  how  many  of  those  points 
lie  had  abandoned  ? 

A.  Well,  I  think  there  were  three  sub- 
jects named  upon  this  tree,  that  he  said  were 
abandoned  ? 

Q.  Was  predestination  one  of  those  sub- 
jects ? 

A.  Well,  sir,  I  don't  remember  whether 
it  was  or  not. 

Q.     Was  depravity  one  of  them? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  I  think  that  absolute  total 
depravity  was.     I  think  that  was  qualified. 

Q.  Was  the  perseverance  of  the  saints 
one  ? 

A.  Well,  I  don't  remember  whether  that 
was  one  or  not.  I  think  in  relation  to  total  de- 
pravity, there  was  something  said  about  there 
being  an  element  of  goodness  in  men  ;  that 
he  did  not  consider  that  man  was  absolutely 
totally  depraved,  or  perhaps  what  might  be 
called  total  depravity. 

Q.  Your  letter  to  him,  as  I  understand 
you  to  say,  called  his  attention  to  the  fire 
points  of  Calvinism,  as  determined  by  the 
Synod  of  Dort.  Am  I  correct  in  that  state- 
ment? 

A.     Well,  yes,  sir  ;  I  think  so. 

Q.  And  his  reply,  I  understand  you  to 
say,  had  direct  reference  toward  the  five 
points  of  Calvinism  alluded  to  in  your  let- 
ter ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  think  those  five  points 
•were  embraced  within  the  branches  of  this 
tree. 

Q.  And  some  of  those  points,  I  under- 
stood you  to  say,  had  been  abandoned.  Am 
I  correct  ? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  depravity  is  one  of  those  five 
points.     Do  I  understand  you  correctly  ? 

A.  I  think,  as  I  remarked  a  few  minutes 
ago,  that  the  question  of  total  depravity  was 
one  of  the  five  points,  when  taken  in  its  ab- 
solute sense. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  whether  predestina- 
tion was  one  of  the  branches  of  this  tree, 
which  he  supposed  the  church  had  aban- 
doned ? 

A.     Yes,  sir ;  I  think  it  was. 


CROSS-EXAMINATION. 

Frof.  Swing. — What  was  the  object  of  the 
letter  ?  Was  it  to  bring  the  Christian  re- 
ligion up  into  a  better  atmosphere,  or  was  it 
to  ridicule  it  in  some  way  ? 

A.  Well,  sir,  there  was  nothing  like  rid- 
icule on  the  part  of  Professor  Swing,  on  the 
question  of  religion,  or  upon  any  of  the 
points.  I  considered  the  letter  as  a  defense 
of  the  Church,  or  of  the  Christian  religion, 
from  the  attacks  that  I  made  upon  it. 

Q.  Can  you  name  to  us  the  five  points  of 
Calvinism  ? 

A.  Well,  sir,  I  think  that  is  doubtful  to- 
day. 

Q.  I  had  forgotten  about  that  tree  ;  but 
I  remembered,  as  soon  as  you  gave  your  evi- 
dence, something  about  it.  Did  I  indicate 
certain  outward  limbs  that  were  broken  ofl"? 

A.     Broken  off"  or  dropped  down. 

Q.  But  the  main  body  I  represented  as 
being  still  living  and  growing,  I  suppose  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  I  think  the  body  of  the  tree 
was  marked ,  "  The  Christian  Church.  " 
Whether  it  was  a  live  tree  or  a  dead  tree  I 
don't  suppose  I  ought  to  answer  ;  but  I  sup- 
pose you  intended  it  for  a  live  tree. 

Q.  There  were  no  leaves  on  it,  were 
there  ? 

A.  No,  sir  ;  I  think  there  were  no  leaves 
there. 

Rev.  Mr.  Noyes. — Do  you  remember 
whether  there  was  anything  in  the  way  of 
definition  in  Professor  Swing's  letters  to  you? 

A.     A  definition  of  what,  sir  ? 

Q.  Well,  of  the  five  points.  For  instance, 
any  distinct  designation  of  them  as  being 
the  five  points,  or  any  one  of  the  five  points 
of  Calvinism? 

A.  No,  sir.  I  don't  think  that  in  the 
tree  they  are  marked  as  being  points  of  Cal- 
vinism. I  think  the  branches  were  marked  ; 
one,  for  instance,  predestination,  and  another 
one  salvation  by  grace,  or  something  in  that 
way  ;  but  I  don't  think  they  were  designated 
as  points  of  Calvinism. 

Q.  Are  you  quite  sure  in  your  own  mind 
that  he  rejected  any  of  these  five  points  ;  or, 
I  would  change  the  question  :  Do  you  think 
that  infant  damnation  is  one  of  those  five 
points  that  he  rejected  ? 

A.  I  think  you  [Professor  Swing]  repu- 
diated infant  Baptism.  I  do  not  understand 
that  that  is  one  of  the  five  points  of  Calvin- 
ism, although  it  was  put  there  as  an  out- 
growth of  it. 


88 


THE  TRIAL  OF  EEV.  DAVID  SWING. 


Q.  In  your  own  mind  do  you  make  any 
distinction  between  election  and  foreordina- 
tion,  or  predestination  ?  Have  you  learned 
any  of  those  distinctions  in  theology  ? 

A.  It  is  a  long  time  since  I  studied  the 
catechism. 

Rev.  Dr.  Patterson. — I  would  like  to  ask 
Mr.  Shufeldt,  if  he  is  sure  that  it  was  the 
five  points  that  he  spoke  of,  when  he  said 
some  of  those  points  had  been  abandoned. 
Inasmuch  as  he  spoke  of  infant  damnation 
as  one  of  them,  whether  it  was  some  point 
on  the  tree. 

A.  Well,  sir,  it  was  points  on  the  tree, 
but  those  points  I  understand  to  be  some  of 
the  points  of  Calvinism. 

Q.  And  you  included,  yourself,  infant 
damnation  ? 

A.  Well,  I  don't  remember  exactly,  but 
my  impression  is  that  I  had  the  doctrine  of 
infant  damnation  as  being  a  part  of  the  Cal- 
vinistic  creed,  and  that  he  stated  that  that 
was  abandoned,  or  that  he  repudiated  it. 

Q.  You  cannot  state,  "except  in  regard  to 
the  qualified  definition  of  total  depravity — 
you  cannot  state  any  other  of  the  points  that 
he  referred  to  as  having  been  abandoned? 

A.  Well,  I  think  there  were  three — three 
of  these  definitions  or  points  on  this  tree  that 
had  been  abandoned.  My  impression  is  that 
they  were.  The  inference  that  I  drew  was, 
that  they  were  part  of  the  five  points  of  the 
Calvinistic  faith. 

Q.  I  would  ask  you  whether  you  accept, 
in  any  sense,  yourself,  the  Christian  religion? 

A.  Well,  sir,  I  don't  think  that  is  a  per- 
tinent question  to-day. 

Q.  I  wish  to  know  in  regard  to  the  ques- 
tion of  testimony,  whether  you  believe  in  the 
existence  of  God  ? 

A.  Gentlemen,  if  you  did  not  want  my 
testimony,  you  ought  not  to  have  called   me. 

Prof.  Patton.-lslv.  Shufeldt's  opinion  on  the 
subject  of  religion  is  not  a  question  in  refer- 
ence to  which  we  wish  information,  and  that 
is  out  of  order. 

Mr.  Shufeldt. — I  have  no  objections  to 
answering  any  questions  any  gentleman  pre- 
sent may  desire  to  put  to  me.  Whether  I 
have  intelligence  enough  to  answer  it,  is 
another  question  ;  but  that  a  finite  being  can 
comprehend  an  infinite  one,  or  that  man  can 
comprehend  God,  I  do  not  believe.  I  believe 
In  a  great  first  principle,  the  Creator  of  the 
Universe,  but  what  God  is  I  can't  tell,  and  I 
don't  think  any  man  can  tell  me. 


The  Moderator. — The  Moderator  would  say 
that  if  any  member  wishes  to  address  any 
question  to  Mr.  Shufeldt,  bearing  upon  his 
competency  as  a  witness,  and  the  ability  of  his 
evidence,  it  is  proper  for  them  to  do  so,  of 
course,  but  if  not,  the  testimony  will  pro- 
ceed. 

Rev.  Dr.  Patterson.— Hid.  Prof.  Swing  state 
anything  about  the  Synod  of  Dort  in  his 
letter,  that  you  remember  ? 

A.  I  don't  think  he  did  in  his  letter,  but 
I  think  I  did  in  mine,  I  don't  think  there 
was  any  reference  to  the  Synod  of  Dort  in  his 
letter,  and  I  don"t  know  whether,  in  my  let- 
ter to  him,  that  reference  was  made,  or 
whether  it  was  in  the  published  letter  to 
which  I  have  referred. 

Q.  Are  you  sure  Prof.  Swing  referred  at 
all  distinctly  to  the  five  points  of  Calvinism? 

A.  Well,  sir,  that  was  the  subject  of  dis- 
cussion between  us  ;  I  think  he  did  refer  to 
it  in  the  manner  in  which  I  have  stated. 

Rev.  Mr.  Tt^alker. — Will  you  please  state 
whether  he  regards  the  matter  of  infant 
damnation  as  one  of  the.  five  points  of  Cal- 
vinism ? 

A.     I  think 

Rev.  W.  F.  Wood. — Did  you,  in  your  letter 
to  Prof.  Swing,  copy  the  five  points  of 
Calvinism  as  laid  down  in  Appleton's 
Cyclopedia,  and  did  he  say  that  three  of 
those  points  were  abandoned  ? 

A.  I  don't  remember,  as  I  said  just  now, 
whether  the  five  points  were  in  my  letter 
to  him,  or  whether  it  was  in  the  published 
letter. 

Q.     Taken  from  Appleton's  Cyclopadia? 

A.  Well,  I  think  thej'^  were  taken  from 
some  account  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Synod 
of  Dort. 

Q.  And  he  said  he  had  abandoned  three 
of  them  ? 

A.  Well,  with  the  qualifications  that 
I  put  upon  that  answer  before. 

Mr.  Ely. — Did  I  understand  you  to  say  that 
infant  damnation  was  not  one  of  those  three 
points,  but  something  that  grew  out  of  them. 
Was  that  the  manner  in  which  you  said, 
Was  that  the  substance  of  your  statement? 

A.  I  said  this  :  as  I  remernber  that  these 
Calvinistic  points  were  made,  I  believe, 
branches  of  this  tree,  and  there  were  several 
other  things  that  were  out-growths  in  the 
shape  of  branches  and  one  of  them  was  infant 
damnation. 

Q.     You  did  not   understand   then  infant 


TESTIMONY  OF  WITNESSES. 


39 


damnation  to  be  one  of  the  three  points. 
"What  was  your  impression  from  the  tree, 
and  the  letter  in  reference  to  that? 

A.  I  think  that  there  were  three,  and  he 
named  matters  in  the  branches  of  the  tree 
that  were  repudiated,  that  is  my  impression 
about  it, 

Q.  Was  infant  damnation  only  one  of 
those,  or  was  it  an  out-growth  from  a  branch? 

A.  I  know  that  infant  damnation  was  re- 
pudiated. That  was  one  of  the  matters  which 
he  said  he  did  repudiate. 

Prof.  Paiton. — But  you  do  not  include  in- 
fant damnation  in  the  three  repudiated — the 
points  of  Calvinism — do  you? 

A.  That  I  can  scarcely  say,  sir.  No  ;  be- 
cause those  several  things  were  marked  as 
branches  upon  this  tree,  and  he  stated  that 
such  and  such  things  were  repudiated  or 
abandoned  by  him.  Infant  damnation,  I  re- 
collect, was  one  of  the  abandoned  specifica- 
tions, or  points. 

Mr.  Wallace. — You  stated  that  predestina- 
tion of  the  saints  was 

A.     Perseverance  of  the  saints,  I  meant. 

Q.  Did  you  understand  Jiim  to  say  that 
he  had  abandoned  one  of  these,  or  this  parti- 
cular doctrine  ? 

A.  I  don't  know  sir.  There  were  three 
things  on  that  tree  that  he  said  had  been 
abandoned  ? 

Q.  How  many  branches  were  there  on 
that  tree  that  you  can  remember  ? 

A.  There  were  a  good  many  branches. 
Some  were  named  and  some  were  not. 

Rev.  Mr.  Paris. — Did  he  say  he  denied,  or 
the  public  had  abandoned  the  doctrine  of  the 
damnation  of  infants,  in  such  a  way  as  to 
imply  that  it  had  been  a  part  and  parcel  of 
the  Calvinistic  system  ? 

A.  Well,  infant  damnation,  I  think,  was 
put  on  that  tree  as  an  out-growth  of  Calvin- 
ism. It  didn't  make  a  great  deal  of  differ- 
ence to  me  whether  it  was  one  of  the  five 
points  or  not. 

Rev.  Dr.  Swazey. — Did  you  name  the  five 
points  in  the  letter  you  wrote  to  him  ? 

A.  I  think  I  answered  before,  that  I 
didn't  recollect  whetl>*r  they  were  inserted 
in  that  letter,  or  whether  they  were  in  the 
letter  published  in  The  Trihiate. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  whether  in  naming 
those  five  points,  either  in  the  letter  or  in  the 
article  in  the  Tribune,  you  named  them  ac- 
cording to  your  own  understanding  of  what 


the  five  points  of  Calvinism  were,  or  from 
some  accredited  standard  ? 

A.     Well,  sir,  I  think  I  named  them  from 

the 1  do  not  think  I   wrote  them  down 

directly  from  any  book,  but  I  got  it  from  my 
examination  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Synod 
of  Dort,  but  I  do  not  think  in  writing  the 
letter  to  Mr.  Swing,  or  to  the  public,  that  I 
copied  them  directly  from  the  book. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  from  a  then  recent  ex- 
amination ? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  from  a  then  recent  examina- 
tion. 

Rev.  W.  F.  Wood. — So  you  are  pretty  sure 
you  had  them  correct  ? 

A.     Well,  sir,  I  don't  know. 

Rev.  Dr.  Patterson.  —  Was  infant  dam- 
nation one  of  these  branches  that  Prof.  Swing 
spoke  of  as  having  fallen  off? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  that  was  a  branch  of  the 
tree. 

Prof  Pation. — Was  infant  damnation  one 
of  three  of  the  five  points  of  Calvinism 
which  Mr.  Swing  affirmed  he  had  abondoned? 

A.  I  do  not  understand  that  infant  dam- 
nation was  one  of  the  five  points  of  Calvinism 
adopted  by  the  Synod  of  Dort. 

Q.  You  did  not  understand  he  had  aban- 
doned three  of  the  five  points  of  Calvinism  ? 

A.  As  I  said  before,  there  were  three 
things  upon  that  tree. 

Rev.  Dr.  Blackburn. — The  article  to  which 
reference  was  made  as  published  in  the 
Tribune — what  was  the  occasion  of  that 
article  ?  What  I  mean  is  this : — was  it  oc- 
casioned by  hearing  Prof.  Swing  preach  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  never  heard  him  but  once 
in  my' life,  and  that  was  long  after  that  time. 
I  think  it  was  occasioned  by  a  published  ser- 
mon of  his. 

Q.  Was  it  designed  to  be  in  criticism  of 
what  Prof.  Swing  had  preached  ? 

A.  I  don't  know,  sir,  whether  it  was  or 
not.  I  presume  it  was.  I  might  have 
thought  he  was  too  orthodox. 

Q.  Had  you,  in  that  published  article, 
any  reference  to  Prof.  Swing? 

A.  I  did,  yes,  sir ;  because  that  invited 
a  reply  from  him  to  me, — a  private  answer. 

Q.  Can  that  article  be  found — can  it  be 
produced  ? 

A.  I  don't  know  sir  :  I  don't  know 
whether  it  can  or  not. 

Q.  Did  you  understand,  when  you  were 
writing  that  article,  or  publishing  it,   that 


40 


THE  TRIAL  OF  REV.  DAVID  SWING. 


you  were  controverting  what  Prof.  Swing 
had  been  preaching  or  teaching? 

A.  I  don't  remember  that ;  it  is  a  long 
time  ago,  and  I  was  writing  considerably  on 
religious  matters  at  that  time. 

Q.  Did  this  reply  to  you  convey  the  idea 
that  he  felt  that  you  had  misrepresented  his 
views  ? 

Objected  to. 

Objection  overruled. 

Exception  by  Prof.  Patton. 

A.  All  that  I  recollect  of  that  reply  now 
is  that  he  said  that  a  newspaper  discussion  of 
these  matters  would  neither  be  profitable  to 
us  nor  entertaining  to  the  public,  and  that 
if  I  had  anything  to  say  to  him  he  would  be 
glad  to  hear  from  me  personally.  The  letter 
was  a  very  friendly  letter,  and  I  had  never 
met  Prof.  Swing.  I  didn't  know  him  per- 
sonally, nor  did  I  know  him  for  five  or  six 
years  afterwards. 

Q.  Tou  understood  him  to  have  abandon- 
ed, or  to  have  expressed  an  abandonment 
of  three  things  on  that  tree  whatever  they 
were  ? 

A.     Tes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  understand  that  he  abandoned 
your  representation  of  those  things  or  the 
church's  representation  of  those  things  ? 

A.  Well,  whether  the  pronoun  "  I "  or 
"  we  had  long  since  abandoned"  was  used, 
I  don't  remember.  The  impression  I  got 
from  it  was  that  these  three  things  had  long 
since  been  abandoned  by  the  church. 
Whether  he  said  "  I  have  long  since  aban- 
doned them,"  I  don't  remember.  My  gen- 
eral impression  would  be  that  he  .said  "  I," 
but  my  inference  was  that  he  was  defending 
the  church. 

Q.  My  point  is  this  :  whether  he  aban- 
doned your  representation,  or  whether  he 
abandoned  the  doctrines  as  would  be  defined 
in  our  standards  ? 

A.     Well,  sir,  1  don't  know. 

Prof.  Patton. — Did  the  letters  convey  the 
idea,  that  the  things  abandoned  by  Mr. 
Swing  were  things  which  he  had  once  held  ? 

A.  I  should  think  that  the  things  aban- 
doned had  been  once  held  by  the  church. 
That  was  the  inference  I  drew  from  it, 
whether  he  had  held  them  himself,  or  not,  I 
don't  know.  I  supposed  this  letter  was  writ- 
ten in  vindication  of  the  church. 

Rev.  Mr.  Noyes. — That  is  the  inference 
you  drew  from  that? 


A.  Tes,  sir,  that  was  the  inference  I  drew 
from  that. 

The  Moderator. —  Without  making  any 
reference  to  this  tree  that  has  been  men- 
tioned, or  to  the  five  points  of  Calvinism,  or 
anything  of  that  kind,  I  understand  you  to 
say  that  three  propositions — I  may  name 
them  as  such  perhaps — three  doctrines  were 
spoken  of  in  Mr.  Swing's  letter  as  abandoned 
by  him,  or  by  somebody.  Now  can  you  state 
definitely  what  those  three  points  abandoned 
were — not  as  being  upon  this  tree  butas  hav- 
ing relation  to  the  Synod  of  Dort?  Can  you 
describe  what  those  three  points  abandoned 
were? 

A.  I  don't  think  I  can,  sir ;  I  do  not 
think  I  would  like  to  undertake  that  from 
my  memory  to-day. 

Rev.  Dr.  Hurd. — You  are  clear  that  In- 
fant Damnation  was  one,  are  you  ? 

A.  I  am  clear  that  Infant  Damnation 
was  one  of  the  propositions  declared  to  have 
been  abandoned. 

Prof.  Patton. — But  not  one  of  the  three  ? 

A.  Well,  sir,  as  I  stated  it  before — if  it  is 
necessary  to  repeat  it  again — I  think  it  was 
one  of  three  things  marked  "  abandoned  " 
on  that  tree. 

Rev.  Gle7inWood.—KTQ  jo\i  sure  that  what 
j'^ou  call  Total  Depravity  was  also  one  of  the 
three  things  abandoned  ? 

A.  Well,  I  think  it  was,  in  that  sense. 
That  was  my  impression  about  it.  In  that 
sense  it  was. 

Q.  Can  you  tell  us  what  the  third  one 
was? 

A.  Will  any  gentleman  name  the  five 
points  to  me  ? 

Prof.  Swing. — I  would  call  upon  the  prose- 
cutor to  name  them. 

Elder  Barber. — I  understand  this  letter  to 
which  you  have  testified,  was  destroyed  in 
the  fire  of  1871  ? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q,     The  letter  representing  the  tree? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Were  all  these  main  branches  of  the 
tree  named  or  designated  by  name  ? 

A.     Well,  I  think  they  were. 

Q.  Can  you  give  all  those  names  from 
memory  ? 

A.     No,  sir,  I  can  not. 

Q.  Can  you  state  how  many  of  those 
branches  were  thus  named  ? 

A.     No,  sir ;  I  can't  state  how  many  were 


TESTIMONY  OF  WITNESSES. 


41 


named  ;  there  may  have  been  six  or  seven, 
or  more,  perhaps. 

Q.  And  were  those  abandoned  ones  thus 
designated  by  writing  the  word  "abandoned" 
to  the  name  on  the  tree  ? 

A.     No,  sir  ;  I  think  they  were  numbered. 

Q.  And  then  the  abandoned  ones  desig- 
nated by  reference  to  the  numbered  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  think  they  were  num- 
bered. 

Q.  We  are  anxious  to  have  you,  if  you 
can,  state  to  us  the  definition  of  those  three 
abandoned  ones,  that  is,  the  name  given  on 
the  tree  as  abandoned  ? 

A.  As  I  said  before,  if  some  gentleman 
in  the  body  of  the  Presbytery  would  name 
the  five  points  of  Calvinism  in  their  order — 

Q.     That  is  now  the  duty  of  the  witness. 

Rev.  Dr.  Beecher. — Was  Election  one  of 
them? 

A.     I  don't  remember. 

Q.  Predestination,  Decrees,  Fore-ordina- 
tion ? 

A.  Is  there  any  diflerence  between  Pre- 
destination and  Fore-ordination  ? 

Rev.  Dr.  Beecher. — Yes,  sir. 

Rev.  Dr.  Patterson. — I  submit  that  the 
making  of  recollection  for  the  witness  is  not 
testimony. 

The  Moderator. — That  is  quite  right.  The 
witness  must  tell  all  he  remembers  himself, 
without  assistance. 

Elder  Barber. — I  also  submit  that  much  of 
this  examination  has  been  what  we  would 
call  so  directly  leading  as  to  be  inadmissible. 
I  do  not  kno.w  whether  the  rule  obtains  in 
ecclesiastical  courts,  that  the  prosecutor  or 
any  examiner  has  a  right  to  put  a  question 
in  such  a  form  as  to  indicate  the  answer  or 
not.  It  would  not  be  permitted  in  the  civil 
courts. 

Q.  Mr.  Shufeldt,  you  cannot  state  the 
three  abandoned  ones  from  your  memory  ? 

A.     No,  sir,  I  cannot. 

Rev.  Mr  McLeod. — Some  of  us  are  a  little 
in  doubt  about  this  tree,  and  in  order  to  do 
away  those  doubts,  I  should  like  to  ask  Mr. 
Shufeldt  a  question. 

The  Moderator. — You  may  ask  it. 

Rev.  Mr.  McLeod. — Were  there  just  five 
main  branches  on  the  tree  ? 

A.  I  think  I  answered  that  question  be- 
fore, sir — that  my  impression  is  that  there 
were  more. 

Q.  I  understand  you  to  say,  sir,  that  there 
were  more  than  five  branches,  but  that  there 


were  not  more  than  five  main  branches  ;  that 
the  others  were  out-growths  from  the  main 
branches  ? 

A.  I  don't  know  with  how  much  artistic 
skill  the  tree  was  drawn.  It  was  simply  a 
rough  sketch,  and  what  might  be  called  the 
main  branches,  and  what  might  be  called  the 
less  important  branches,  I  do  not  know  now. 
I  could  scarcely  tell  of  that  thing  from  my 
recollection  to-day. 

Q.  The  reason  for  the  question  is  this, 
that  you  stated  that  infant  damnation  was  an 
out-growth,  and  that  it  was  one  of  the  things 
which  he  repudiated.     Am  I  right  ? 

A.  I  may  have  stated  that  it  was  an  out- 
growth. It  was  a  branch.  The  tree  was 
drawn  up  with  a  trunk  and  several  project- 
ing branches,  and  those  different  branches 
were  marked,  I  remember. 

Q.  Then  infant  damnation  was  not  one  of 
the  main  branches  ? 

A.  I  don't  know  whether  it  was  a  main 
one  or  an  inferior  branch. 

Testimony  read  and  approved  by  witness. 

(Signed,)        Georgk  A.  Shufeldt,  Jr. 

The  prosecutor  renewed  his  motion  for  a 
postponement  of  the  trial  for  two  months  in 
order  to  obtain  the  testimony  of  Eev.  R.  L. 
Collier.  It  was  not  granted.  Subsequently 
a  committee,  consisting  ot  E.  L.  Hurd,  J.  T. 
Matthews,  and  Elder  Barber  was  appointed 
to  present  reasons  for  the  refusal. 

The  prosecutor  entered  his  dissent  from 
this  action. 

The  report  of  a  sermon  preached  by  Prof. 
Swing,  and  published  in  the  Chicago  Tribune 
of  Dec.  12,  1872,  and  which  was  admitted  by 
the  counsel  for  the  accused  to  be  a  correct 
abstract,  was  then  ofl'ered  in  evidence  by 
Prof.  Patton,  and  subsequently  read  in  his 
argument. 

The  testimony  for  the  prosecution  here 
ended. 

The  first  witness  called  on  behalf  of  the 
accused  was  Horace  F.  Waite,  Esq. 

Pending  his  examination,  the  hour  of  ad- 
journment arrived,  and  the  Synod  was  closed 
with  prayer,  to  meet  at  10  o'clock  a.  m.  to- 
morrow, the  7th  inst. 


Thursday,  May  7th,  10  o'clock  a.  m. 

Pursuant  to  adjournment,  the  Presbytery 
convened  and  was  opened  with  prayer. 
Inter  alia  : 

The  answer  to  the  protest  of  the  prosecutor 


42 


THE  TKIAL  OF  KEV.  DAVID  SWING. 


against  admitting  to  record  the  questions  and 
answers  which  passed  between  himself  and 
Dr.  Swazey,  relating  to  Eev.  K.  L.  Collier's 
testimony,  was  presented  and  adopted  as 
follows : 

To  point  first  in  the  protest,  viz. :  "  He  had 
furnished  the  Presbytery  an  affidavit  which 
sets  forth  with  sufScient  accuracy  the  reasons 
for  asking  a  continuance  of  the  case  pending, 
and  that  it  is  not  competent  for  the  Presby- 
tery to  investigate  any  fact  outside  of  the 
affidavit,"  the  reply  is  :  The  court  has  a 
right  to  satisfy  itself  on  the  merits  of  all 
questions  submitted  to  its  decision  ;  and  is 
bound,  if  knowledge  on  material  matters  is 
within  reach,  to  avail  itself  of  such  knowl- 
edge. In  this  case  it  was  material  to  know 
whether  the  prosecutor  had  used  all  diligence 
to  bring  his  witness  into  court.  The  witness 
in  this  case,  Eev.  Kobert  Laird  Collier,  being 
beyond  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court,  it  was 
material  to  know  if  inquiry  had  been  insti- 
tuted whether  Mr.  Collier  would  at  any  time, 
now  or  in  the  future,  respond  to  the  citation 
of  the  Presbytery.  The  affidavit  was  insuffi- 
cient, as  it  set  forth  only  the  fact  of  Mr. 
Collier's  absence  and  the  privacy  of  his 
papers. 

To  point  second,  "  Because  the  answers 
were  not  given  under  the  solemnity  of  an 
oath,  and  are  not  entitled  to  be  regarded  as 
evidence,"  the  reply  is :  It  is  not  necessary 
for  the  court  to  restrict  itself  on  the  question 
of  continuance  to  knowledge  obtained  under 
oath.  It  may  base  its  action  on  any  knowl- 
edge, from  whatever  source  obtained,  which  is 
satisfactory  to  itself.  In  this  case,  however, 
the  evidence  was  legal,  being  derived  from 
the  party  moving  the  continuance. 

To  point  third,  "  liecause  the  questions  and 
answers  aforesaid  are  a  reproduction  from  the 
memory  of  the  court,  of  a  conversation 
which  took  place  yesterday  afternoon,  in 
which  the  replies  were  made  as  a  matter  of 
courtesy,  and  with  no  idea  that  they  were  to 
form  a  part  of  the  record  of  the  Presbytery," 
it  is  irrelevant  whether  the  questions  were  or 
were  not  questions  of  courtesy,  so  long  as  the 
answers  thereto  were  regarded  by  the  court 
as  truthful.  In  point  of  fact,  they  were  un- 
derstood by  the  court  to  be  its  own  questions 
proposed  to  a  petitioner  asking  action  of  the 
court. 

To  point  fourth,  "  Because  it  is  the  belief  of 
the  undersigned  that  the  newspaper  report  of 
the  said  conversation  is  not  correct,"  the  re- 
ply is  (a)  that  the  questions  and  answers 
were  taken  verbatim  by  a  short-hand  report- 
er ;  (b)  that  their  correctness  is  confirmed  by 
the  belief  of  the  interrogator  ;  (c)  and  also 
by  the  belief  of  the  court,  no  member  thereof 
at  the  time  of  making  the  record,  or  since 
that  time,  suggesting  any  particular  in  which 
they  were  supposed  to  be  incorrect. 

(Signed,)  Arthur  Swazey, 

E.  L.  HuED, 

J.    S.    GOULU. 

Horace  F.  Waite,  Esq.,  having  been  pre- 


viously sworn,  was  examined  by  Kev.    Mr. 
Noyes,  and  testified  as  follows  : 

Q.  Did  you  ever  hear  Professor  Swing 
preach  upon  the  divinity  of  Christ,  or  the 
deity  of  Christ? 

A.  I  do  not  remember  any  distinct  sermon 
upon  that  subject,  but  I  remember  of  its 
being  referred  to  in  his  sermons. 

Prof.  Patton. — I  would  like  to  ask  Mr. 
"Waite  if  that  was  a  sermon  delivered  from 
manuscript. 

A.  All  of  Mr.  Swing's  sermons,  using 
the  word  sermon  in  a  strict  sense,  are  from, 
manuscripts. 

Prof.  Patton. — Then  I  shall  object  to  the 
examination  of  the  witness.  I  shall  call  for 
the  sermon.  It  is  not  competent  for  this 
body  to  receive  parole  testimony  when  we 
can  have  the  written  sermon. 

Rev.  Mr.  Noyes. — We  have  received  parole 
testimony  here  this  morning,  and  yesterday, 
in  regard  to  sermons  Professor  Swing  has 
preached. 

Prof.  Patton. — Only  upon  the  understand- 
ing that  the  written  sermons  could  not  be 
produced. 

Rev.  Dr.  Patterson. — I  beg  to  say  on  this 
subject,  if  I  understand  the  facts  in  the  case, 
that  the  large  majority  of  the  sermons  preach- 
ed by  Professor  Swing  since  he  has  been 
preaching  to  that  church,  have  been  destroy- 
ed by  fire,  and  are  not  accessible. 

Prof.  Patton. — I  would  like  to  ask  if  the 
particular  sermon  of  which  Mr.  Waite 
means  to  testify  is  in  existence.  My  object- 
ion is  still  good. 

The  Moderator. — The  Moderator  would  de- 
cide that  this  testimony  is  admissible. 

Prof.  Patton. — I  shall  be  compelled  to  ap- 
peal from  the  Moderator's  decision.  I  can- 
not accept  parole  testimony  as  to  written 
sermons  until  the  question  of  the  existence 
of  these  sermons  is  settled. 

The  Moderator. — A  very  large  part  of 
these  sermons  is  not  in  existence,  and  we 
cannot  get  at  a  great  part  of  them. 

Prof.  Patton. — Let  the  examination  pro- 
ceed. I  may  recur  to  the  question  before 
long. 

Rev.  Mr.  Noyes, — (To  the  witness).  You 
have  heard  Mr.  Swing  preach  upon  the  sub- 
ject of  the  atonement  of  Christ — the  person 
of  Christ  ? 

A.  I  have  heard  Mr.  Swing  preach  ever 
since  he  commenced  being  the  pastor  of  the 
Westminster  Church,  while  I  have  been  in 


TESTIMONY  OF  WITNESSES. 


43 


the  city,  and  I  have  heard  him  in  the  "Wed- 
nesday evening  lectures  that  he  has  delivered 
to  that  church  ever  since  that  time,  with  the 
exception  of  durina;  the  time  I  may  have 
been  absent  or  was  detained  from  attendance 
upon  him. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  hear  him  preach  any 
sermon  that  produced  upon  your  mind  the 
conviction  that  he  leaned,  in  never  so  slight 
a  degree,  toward  the  Unitarian  faith  ? 

A.  On  the  contrary,  instead  of  leaning 
toward  it,  I  have  heard  from  him,  and  once 
I  remember  distinctly — a  sermon  occurring 
before  the  fire — the  strongest  argument  I 
ever  listened  to  in  my  life,  against  Unitari- 
anism,  and  he  constantly  teaches  the  doc- 
trines of  the  trinity  and  deity  of  Christ. 

Q.  Have  you  any  recollection  whether 
that  sermon  drew  out  a  reply  from  Kev. 
Kobert  Collyer  ? 

A.  I  do  not  remember.  I  am  not  very 
much  in  the  habit  of  reading  the  replies  that 
are  made  in  the  newspapers,  of  that  kind ; 
and  I  may  or  may  not  have  noticed  it. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  hear  Professor  Swing 
preach  upon  the  subject  of  future  retribu- 
tion—the final  separation  of  the  righteous 
and  the  wicked  ? 

A.  I  have,  on  three  or  four  occasions. 
The  Wednesday  evening  previous  or  subse- 
quent to  the  doubts  that  were  expressed  in 
the  Interior,  the  subject  matter  of  the  lect- 
ure for  the  evening  was  in  Matthew.  When 
that  question  was  discussed  by  Professor 
Swing  he  explained  it  to  his  church,  and  he 
taught  the  doctrines  of  future  punishment. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  hear  Professor  Swing 
preach  any  sermon  that  was  in  any  way  in 
conflict  with  any  of  the  evangelical  doc- 
trines of  Christianity  ? 

A.  I  have,  I  believe,  all  my  life  sat  un- 
der Presbyterian  preaching,  and  the  doc- 
trines that  he  has  taught  me  have  been  such 
as  I  have  been  wont  to  listen  to.  I,do  |not 
profess  to  be  a  theologian. 

Q.  Are  you  one  of  the  elders  of  the 
Fourth  Presbyterian  Church  of  this  city  ? 

A.     I  am,  sir. 

Q.  Were  you  one  of  the  elders  of  the 
Westminster  Church  ? 

A.     I  was,  sir. 

CROSS-EXAMINATION  BY  PROF.  FATTOX. 

Q,     What  do  you  mean  by  the  divinity  of 
Christ  ? 
A.     The  deity  of  Christ. 


Q.  What  do  you  mean  by  the  deity  of 
Christ? 

A.     God. 

Q.     What  do  you  mean  by  the  Trinity? 

A.  I  do  not  know  that  I  can  give  you  an 
exact  evangelical  answer.  I  understand 
by  the  Trinity,  that  there  are  three  persons 
in  the  God-head,  co-equal  with  each  other. 

Q.  What  do  you  understand  by  the  word 
evangelical  ? 

A.  Well,  that  is  a  word  that  hsis  a  wide 
meaning,  and  it  might  be  diflScult  to  define 
with  exactness,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  regard  the  word  "  evangel- 
ical'' as  necessarily  carrying  with  it  the 
idea  that  a  man  would  be  acceptable  to  the 
Presbyterian  church  ? 

A.  A  man  may  be  evangelical  and  not 
Presbyterian,  sir. 

Q.     When  was  that  sermon  preached  ? 

A.  It  was  preached  just  before  the  union 
of  the  North  Church  and  our  Church,  and 
he  took  up  and  showed  the  diflerence  be- 
tween the  Unitarians  and  the  Presbyterians, 
and  how  much  better  Presbyterianism  was 
than  Unitarianism. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  the  distinction  that 
he  drew  ? 

A.  I  remember  some  of  the  points,  be- 
cause the  argument  made  a  very  strong  im- 
pression upon  me.  I  cannot  remember  the 
language,  but  I  can  give  the  points  of  it. 

Q.     What  were  those  points  ? 

A.  One  of  them  I  remember  distinctly. 
It  was  this :  That  the  Unitarians  did  not 
recognize  Christ  as  God,  but  they  gave  to 
Him  a  large  degree  of  humanity.  Now,  I 
do  not  profess  to  use  his  exact  language ;  but 
the  Presbyterian  faith  was  better  because  it 
went  farther  than  this,  and  not  only  made 
Him  a  man  but  a  God. 

Q.  Did  he  use  the  word  "  God  "  in  that 
connection — has  he  made  Him  God? 

A.  He  used  the  word — perhaps  the  word 
he  ordinarily  used  is  "  divinensss,"  or  "di- 
vinity of  Christ," — using  it,  as  I  understand 
it,  in  the  sense  of  the  "  deity  of  Christ." 

Q.  Did  you  ever  hear  him  speak  of  Christ 
and  use  the  word  "  deity  "  in  connection  ? 

A.  I  don't  remember  that  he  ever  did, 
but  I  have  heard  him  use  the  word  "  di- 
vinity '*  in  such  a  sense  that  there  could  be  no 
question  but  that  he  meant  the  deity  of 
Christ. 

Q.  What  do  you  understand  by  future 
punishment  ? 


4A 


THE  TlllAL  OF  EEV.  DAVID  SWING. 


A.  I  understand  by  it  what  I  have  always 
been  taught  in  the  Presbyterian  church, 
that  the  people  are  punished  in  a  future 
state. 

Q.  Are  the  evangelical  churches  alone  in 
believing  in  future  punishment  ? 

A.  Well,  I  hardly  know  how  to  answer 
that  question,  because  I  have  a  sort  of  rule 
that  I  do  not  read  much  of  what  would  be 
called  heterodox  reading. 

Q.  The  fact  that  a  man  believes  in  future 
punishment  would  not  exclude  him  from  the 
Universalist  church  ? 

A.  I  don't  know.  I  never  heard  a  Uni- 
versalist sermon  in  my  life,  but  I  am  told 
many  of  the  TJniversalists  believe  in  future 
punishment ;  but  it  is  mere  hearsay. 

Hev.  Mr.  Noyes. — It  does  not  occur  to  me 
that  this  is  exactly  testimony  at  all. 

The  Moderator. — That  is  true  with  regard 
to  the  last  two  or  three  questions. 

Prof.  Patton. — I  think  the  questions  are 
quite  pertinent.  I  am  not  going  any  farther. 
I  am  merely  going  over  the  ground  that  Mr. 
Noyes  went  over.  The  value  of  Mr.  Waite's 
testimony  depends  very  much  upon  what  he 
knows  about  future  punishment  and  the  deity 
of  Christ. 

The  Moderator. — I  do  not  object  on  this 
point,  to  it,  but  to  the  belief  of  the  Univer- 
salist churches. 

Prof.  Patton. — I  want  to  know  whether 
Mr.  Waite  comprehended  that  Universalists 
believe  in  future  punishment. 

Q.  Did  you  say  that  Mr.  Swing  has  taught 
the  doctrine  of  future  punishment  ? 

A.     Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Is  that  the  most  pronounced  way  in 
which  you  would  express  his  teaching  ? 

A.  Well,  he  has  expressed  himself,  I 
have  heard  him  express  himself,  to  this 
effect :  That  there  is  no  question  at  all  that 
the  Greek  words — this,  perhaps,  was  in  pri- 
vate conversation  more  than  otherwise — that 
the  Greek  words  in  the  Bible  could  not  be 
translated,  and  the  Bible  did  not  teach  any- 
thing else  than  eternal  punishment. 

Q.  Tou  have  heard  him  distinctly  avow 
his  belief  in  eternal  punishment  ? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.     In  private  conversation,  you  say? 

A.  Well,  in  both  public  and  private  lec- 
tures— he  is  in  the  habit  of  familiarly  lectur- 
ing to  us  on  Wednesday  evenings  ;  taking 
up  passages  of  Scripture  and  explaining 
them.     The  lectures  are  entirely  oral,  that 


is,  as  contra-distinguished  from  written  ser- 
mons. 

Q.  Is  there  any  difference  between  his 
lectures  and  his  sermons  in  that  way  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  in  this  one  respect,  that  in 
the  lectures  it  is  less  formal.  I  do  not  under- 
stand that  any  different  doctrine  is  taught  in 
the  one  case  than  in  the  other,  but  when  you 
take  up  a  passage  of  Scripture  and  explain 
it  verse  bj-  verse,  there  is  more  point  to  it  or 
more  explanation  of  the  Scriptures. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  hear  him  teach  the  doc- 
trine of  eternal  punishment  in  the  pulpit  ? 

A.     Yes.  sir. 

Q.     Can  you  recall  the  circumstance  ? 

A.  I  cannot  recall  the  circumstances  ex- 
cept that  I  remember  I  was  trying  to  think 
myself  of  how  many  sermons  I  had  known 
him  to  preach  on  that  subject.  I  think  I  can 
recall  two  or  three. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  the  language  he 
used? 

A.     No,  sir,  I  do  not. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  the  line  of  argu- 
ment he  pursued  ? 

A.  No,  sir,  I  do  not  remember  the  line  of 
argument. 

Q.  But  you  are  positive  that  he  has 
preached  in  his  pulpit  that  doctrine  ? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Is  that  a]circumstance  that  you  would 
naturally  remember  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  because  I  did  not  question 
for  a  moment  but  that  he  taught  it,  and  it 
would  not  make  any  impression  upon  my 
mind,  and  I  was  only  surprised  when  I  heard 
it  questioned  by  anybody,  and  commenced 
reflecting  in  relation  to  sermons  in  which  he 
had  expressly  taught  these  doctrines. 

Q.  You  say  you  have  heard  him  teach 
the  doctrine  of  the  trinity  ? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.     How  did  he  teach  it  ? 

A.  Well,  I  can't  give  you  the  argument. 
If  I  could  do  so,  it  would  be  rather  my  state- 
ment than  perhaps  to  use  his  language. 

Q.     Did  he  use  the  word  trinity  ? 

A.  Well,  I  cannot  give  you  the  words 
that  he  made  use  of. 

Q.  You  do  not  remember  whether  he 
used  the  word  trinity  ? 

A.  Oh  !  he  has  used  the  word  trinity  re- 
peatedly in  his  discourses,  but  I  cannot  give 
you  the  exact  words  in  which  he  taught  be- 
lief in  the  trinity,  and  in  the  explanation 
which  I  have  given,  I  have  given  my  Ian- 


TESTIMONY  OF  WITNESSES. 


45 


guage.  I  have  not  sought  to  give  his  lan- 
guage, but  I  have  given  my  language. 

Q.  What  would  you  understand  by  the 
doctrine  of  trinity?  you  say  be  has  taught 
the  doctrine  of  the  trinity,  what  do  you  un- 
derstand by  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity? 

A.  I  am  not  a  theologian,' and  I  do  not 
know  that  I  could  give  that  exact  language 
that  would  be  satisfactory  to  those  who  make 
theology  a  profession.  I  understood  by  the 
theology  he  has  taught  the  theology  that  I 
listened  to  all  my  life  from  the  Presbyterian 
and  Calvinistic  pulpits. 

Q.  Then  I  understand  you  to  say  that 
you  do  not  know  what  the  doctrine  of  the 
trinity  is  ? 

A.  I  have  my  own  private  understanding 
of  it. 

Q.  Will  you  be  kind  enough  to  tell  us 
what  your  private  understanding  of  the  trin- 
ity is 

Rev.  Mr.  Noyes. —  The  questions  do  not 
seek  to  draw  out  anything  in  the  nature  of 
evidence. 

Prof.  Paiion. — The  simple  question  is — 
Mr.  Waite  says  Mr.  Swing  teaches  the  doc- 
trine of  the  trinity.  I  do  not  know  what 
importance  to  attach  to  it  until  I  know  what 
it  is. 

Rev.  Mr.  Wood. — Is  the  prosecution,  or  any 
one,  in  cross-examination,  permitted  to  ask 
only  one  question  upon  a  point  ?  The  very 
idea  of  a  cross-examination  is  to  cross  your 
question  so  as  to  get  out  every  idea  that  is  to 
be  got  out. 

Q.  Mr.  Waite  will  you  be  kind  enough 
to  tell  us  when  the  Fourth  Presbyterian 
Church  was  organized  ? 

A.  1  do  not  know  that  I  can  exactly  ;  it 
was  anterior  to  the  fire,  and  I  think  in  the 
fall  of  1870. 

Q.  Was  there  an  interval  between  the 
consolidation  of  the  two  churches  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  and  the  formal  organization  of  the 
church  as  a  matter  of  the  Presbytery  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  there  were  two  churches,  the 
Westminster  and  the  North ;  the  union  re- 
sulted in  the  formation  of  the  Fourth. 

Q.  Can  you  tell  us  the  month  of  the  year 
of  1870  ? 

A.     I  cannot,  sir. 

Q.     Was  it  in  the  early  part  of  the  year? 

A.  No,  sir ;  because  I  returned  from 
Europe  in  October,  1870,  and  it  was  after 
that  date. 

Q.    It  was  1870? 


A.  The  union  of  the  two  churches  was 
consummated  after  the  date  which  I  have 
mentioned — October. 

Q.     After  October,  1870  ? 

A.  After  October,  1870  ;  the  exact  date 
of  the  formal  organization  of  the  church  I 
cannot  give  you,  sir. 

Q.  But  it  was  between  October,  1870,  and 
the  beginning  of  1871,  do  I  understand  that? 

A.  It  was  soon  after  the  union  of  the 
churches  that  they  proceeded  to  organize.  I 
personally  had  nothing  to  do  with  the 
papers  which  related  to  the  organization  of 
that  church  ;  and  consequently  do  not  know 
that  I  have  any  means  of  knowing  the  date. 

Q.  Mr.  Waite  will  you  tell  us  what  ser- 
mons referred  to  in  your  evidence  of  yester- 
day belonged  to  a  period  prior  to  the  organ- 
ization of  the  Fourth  Church  ? 

A.  If  you  will  tell  me  what  matter  you 
allude  to,  I  will  tell  you  when,  or  near  when 
the  sermon  was  preached. 

Q.  You  testified  that  you  had  heard  Mr. 
Swing  preach  a  sermon  against  Unitarian- 
ism? 

A.  That  sermon,  according  to  my  recol- 
lection, and  I  do  not  wish  to  be  exact  as  to 
dates,  was  preached  anterior  to  April,  1870, 
in  the  Westminster  Church. 

Q.  You  testified  that  you  had  heard  Mr. 
Swing  preach  on  the  deity  of  Christ — or  the 
divinity  of  Christ,  I  should  say  ? 

A.  I  did  not  say  that  I  had  heard  him 
preach  a  sermon  on  the  deity  of  Christ ;  I 
said  that  in  his  sermons  he  constantly  recog- 
nized the  deity  of  Christ.  That  was  what  I 
said. 

Q.  Do  I  understand  you  as  referring  in 
your  testimony  which  is  covered  by  the 
period  prior  to  the  organization  of  the  Fourth 
Church  in  this  sermon  on  Unitarianism  ? 

A.  I  do  not  understand  your  question  ; 
the  language  to  me  is  ambiguous. 

Q.  You  testified  to  Mr.  Swing's  preach- 
ing on  the  person  of  Christ,  on  the  atone- 
ment of  Christ,  on  the  divinity  of  Christ ; 
and  I  wish  to  know  whether  that  preaching 
occurred  before  or  since  the  organization  of 
the  Fourth  Church? 

A.  I  wish  to  be  understood  that  he 
preached  and  embraced  all  those  subjects 
more  or  less  in  all  his  sermons  and  weekly 
lectures  before  and  since  the  organization  of 
the  church  ;  that  he  recognized  the  truth  of 
those  doctrines. 


46 


THE  TRIAL  OF  EEV.  DAVID  SWING. 


Q.  Mr.  Waite,  could  you  mention  any 
special  sermons  ? 

A.  No,  sir  ;  when  a  truth  is  recognized 
and  stated  according  to  the  teachings  of  the 
church,  and  not  specially  developed,  I  can't 
mention  it  as  a  special  sermon.  I  should 
call  it  a  special  sermon  when  he  took  up  the 
subject  of  the  deity  of  Christ,  and  developed 
it  as  a  subject. 

Q.  Well,  will  you  say,  Mr.  Waite, 
whether  these  doctrines  were  taught  during 
the  period  between  the  organization  of  the 
Fourth  Church  and  the  fire  which  occurred 
in  October,  1871  ? 

A.  There  was  no  absence  during  that 
time  when  I  was  present  at  his  sermons  and 
weekly  lectures  of  such  teachings.  I  was 
not  present,  and  did  not  listen  to  all  his  ser- 
mons during  that  period  of  time. 

Q.  Do  you  wish  to  be  understood  as  testi- 
fying that  in  those  sermons  he  did  recognize 
those  doctrines? 

A.  I  do,  sir,  in  the  sermons  which  I 
heard  him  preach. 

Prof.  Patton. — I  desire  to  know  whether 
those  sermons  preached  during  the  interval 
which  elapsed  between  the  formation  of  the 
Fourth  Church  and  the  fire  can  be  produced. 
I  would  like  to  ask  the  defense  that  ques- 
tion ? 

Mr.  Noyes. — They  were  all  burnt  up,  sir. 

Prof.  Patton. — I  will  make  the  statement 
of  the  gentleman  as  a  satisfactory  answer  to 
that  question.  . 

Q.  Mr.  Waite,  than  I  understand  you  to 
say  that  Mr.  Swing  has  taught  the  doctrines 
respecting  the  deity  of  Christ,  and  the  atone- 
ment of  Christ,  since  the  fire  ? 

A.  I  want  to  be  understood  that  during 
the  entire  period  of  Mr.  Swing's  ministry, 
commencing  with  the  Westminster  Church, 
down  to  the  present  time,  he  has  taught  the 
doctrines  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  as  I 
understand  them,  and  as  the  church  gener- 
ally understands  them. 

Q.  Yes  ;  that  is  the  way  I  understand  it, 
Mr.  Waite.  I  simply  wish  to  be  more  de- 
finite as  to  time  and  place. 

A.  I  do  not  mean  to  cover  any  one  period, 
but  all. 

Prof.  Patton. — Now,  Mr.  Moderator,  I 
desire  to  know  if  the  sermons  that  Mr. 
Swing  preached  during  the  interval  that  has 
elapsed  since  the  fire,  and  up  to  the  present 
time,  are  in  existence.  I  ask  the  defense 
that  question. 


Mr.  Noyes. — Probably  all  of  them.  Yes, 
sir  ;  I  am  advised,  sir,  that  one  disappeared 
up  at  the  seminary,  which  has  never  been 
recovered. 

Prof.  Patton. — I  would  like  to  ask  the  de- 
fense what  was  the  name  of  that  sermon. 

Mr.  Noyes. — "God  Blessed  Forever."  If 
the  defendant  is  on  the  witness  stand  he  will 
answer. 

Prof.  Patton. — Mr,  Waite,  you  testified 
that  Mr.  Swing  had  preached  a  sermon  in 
opposition  to  the  Unitarians.  I  would  like 
to  know  what  you  understand  by  Unitarian- 
ism. 

Mr.  Noyes. — I  shall  object  to  that  question. 
The  witness  is  not  obliged  to  disclose  his 
views  on  those  doctrines,  but  his  province  is 
to  state  the  views  of  Mr.  Swing. 

Prof.  Patton. — The  objection  is  entirely 
unnecessary.  It  is  competent  for  me  to 
know  whether  Mr.  Waite  knows  anything 
about  Unitarianism,  in  order  to  know  wheth- 
er he  can  testify  whether  Mr.  Swing  preach- 
ed against  Unitarianism  or  not. 

The  Moderator. — The  Moderator  would 
suppose  that  this  view  of  the  matter  proba- 
bly covers  the  ground,  that  either  upon  the 
examination  in  chief,  or  the  cross-examina- 
tion, any  question  is  allowable  which  seems 
necessary  to  understand  fully  the  meaning 
of  the  witness  ;  and  if  at  any  point  such  a 
question  had  been  asked,  the  Moderator 
would  have  ruled  it  as  admissible;  and  he 
regards  this  question  to  be  perfectly  compe- 
tent and  admissible.  Professor  Patton  asks 
whether  Mr.  Waite  heard  Mr.  Swing  preach 
a  sermon  against  Unitarianism,  and  he  re- 
plies that  he  has.  He  then  wants  to  know 
what  Mr.  Waite  understands  Unitarianism 
to  be ;  and  it  seems  to  me  that  in  order  to 
get  at  the  true  meaning  of  the  first  reply, 
the  second  reply  must  be  heard.  That  is  my 
view  of  the  matter. 

The  question  is  ruled  to  be  admissible. 
Allow  the  Moderator  to  state,  in  justice  to 
himself,  that  I  should  of  course  rule  out  any 
question  as  to  the  private  opinions  or  preju- 
dices of  a  witness ;  but  it  seems  to  me,  in  its 
design  and  actual  purpose  to  look  only  to  an 
explanation  of  the  meaning  of  a  previous 
reply,  appears  admissible. 

Mr.  Waite. — I  am  not  a  theologian.  I  do 
not  understand  that  they  have  what  theolo- 
gians call  a  formulated  theology  adopted  by 
the  Unitarian  Church  generally ;  hence  it 
would  be  very  difficult  for  me  to  tell  what 


TESTIMONY  OF  WITNESSES. 


47 


their  peculiar  tenets  were,  as  recognized  by 
the  church  at  large. 

Prof.  Patton.—YoM  testified  that  Pro- 
fessor Swing  had  preached  the  doctrine  of 
salvation  by  Christ,  did  you  not? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Would  j-ou  be  kind  enough  to  tell  us 
what  your  view  of  preaching  by  Christ  is  ? 

A.  It  is  substantially  what  I  saw  in  the 
Interior  two  weeks  ago,  that  it  was  necessary 
to  admit  men  into  the  church. 

Q.  Will  you  be  kind  enough  to  say  what 
that  was  ? 

A.  Belief — let  the  question  be  repeated 
then. 

Q.  What  was  the  statement  in  the  Inte- 
rior ? 

A.  That  to  admit  persons  into  the  church 
all  that  was  required  was  a  belief  in  the  Sa- 
viour as  a  mediator,  and  that  they  had  been 
born  again,  I  believe  ;  I  do  not  undertake 
to   quote  the  language  exactly. 

Q.  It  is  your  opinion,  I  understand  then, 
that  such  a  statement  should  be  considered 
as  evangelical  theology — evangelical  preach- 
ing? 

A.  Evangelical  preaching  I  would  under- 
stand to  be  such  as  is  preached  and  recog- 
nized sound  by  the  family  of  evangelical 
churches — evangelical  Presbyterian  church- 
es. I  could  recognize  such  as  we  are  accus- 
tomed to  receive  from  the  Presbyterian  pul- 
pits ;  that  I  would  recognize  as  evangelical 
Presbyterian  preaching. 

Q.  I  will  read  a  sentence  to  you,  and  will 
ask  you  if  that  is  evangelical :  "Christ  is 
literally  the  hope  of  glory  ;  without  Him  as 
the  interpreter  of  God  to  man  and  the  me- 
diator between  Him  and  us,  we  are  without 
God  and  without  hope  in  the  world."  If 
you  were  to  hear  a  sentiment  of  that  kind  in 
the  pulpit  would  you,  or  would  you  not,  call 
that  evangelical  doctrine  ? 

A.  I  should,  sir  ;  because  I  understand 
that  "divinity  of  Christ,"  as  ordinarily  un- 
derstood by  the  hearers,  means  the  equiva- 
lent of  Deity. 

Q.  Do  you  regard  that  as  an  unequivocal 
statement  of  the  Deity  of  Christ  ? 

A.  Unequivocal  is  something  that  no  man 
can  cavil  at.  I  understand  in  the  popular 
sense  that  it  was  used  as  the  exact  equivalent 
to  the  deity  of  Christ ;  because  we  laymen  in 
the  Presbyterian  church  understand  the 
divinity  of  Christ  as  the  synonym  of  the 
deity  of  Christ ;   we  do  not  recognize  a  dis- 


tinction between  the  words  "divinity  of 
Christ,"  and  the  words  "  deity  of  Christ." 

Q.  I  will  read  another  sentence  :  "  So  it 
is  very  painful  to  hear  learned  men,  skilled 
in  the  technics  of  science,  and  the  vocabulary 
of  philosophy,  traduce,  may  I  trust  unwit- 
tingly, the  religion  of  the  cross ;  compare  the 
grand  Socrates  with  the  simple  Jesus,  whose 
only  power  is  this  :  that  He  is  the  Lamb  slain 
from  the  foundation  of  the  world.  Dear 
friend,  I  would  say,  Socrates  for  the  intellect 
— for  the  speculative  days ;  Pythagoras  and 
Seneca  for  literary  and  philosophical  moods  ; 
but  to  whom  shall  we  go  when  the  soul  is 
bleeding ;  and  we  are  dying  for  love  and 
pity  ;  when  we  are  crushed,  and  our  heads 
are  hanging  bleeding  heart  flowers,  but  unto 
Christ,  and  him  crucified  ?"  I  ask  you,  Mr. 
Waite,  whether  that  is  evangelical  preach- 
ing? 

A.  I  will  say  to  that  as  I  did  to  the  former 
question  of  like  character  ;  it  is  a  tenet  in  my 
profession,  never  to  construe  a  portion  with- 
out the  whole ;  I  have  not  listened  to  the 
context,  and  I  can  express  no  opinion  upon 
it. 

Q.  But,  sir,  suppose  you  were  to  find  that 
as  a  simple  declaration  without  any  context, 
would  you  call  that  evangelical  ? 

A.     Well,  what  kind  of  evangelical  ? 

Q.  Well,  would  you  call  it  evangelical,  aa 
you  use  the  word  evangelical  ? 

A.  I  have  given  several  definitions  of  the 
word  evangelical.  I  have  spoken  of  the  word 
evangelical  as  used  by  a  family  of  churches^ 
and  then  I  have  distinguished  between  that 
and  what  would  belong  to  the  Presbyteriaa 
church. 

Q.  Do  I  understand  you  to  say  that  you 
have  no  fixed  use  for  the  word  "  evangel- 
ical?" 

A.  I  have  a  fixed  use  for  it  in  its  popular 
sense,  as  applying  to  all  the  evangelical 
churches. 

Q.  Well,  as  applied  to  all  the  evangelical 
churches,  what  would  you  say  of  such  a  state- 
ment, seeing  it  alone? 

A.  I  will  say  in  relation  to  it,  that  if  you 
will  give  me  the  s3rmon  and  allow  me  to 
read  it  through  and  couple  it  with  the  con- 
text, I  will  express  my  opinion,  if  my  opinion 
as  a  layman  is  of  any  value  to  theologians. 

Q.  I  simply  want  to  know  whether  if  you 
saw  that  statement  alone  you  would  regard 
it  as  an  evangelical  statement. 

A.     I  would  say  in  relation  to  that,  that  I 


48 


THE  TKIAL  OF  KEV.  DAVID  SWING. 


fiave  long  since  learned  that  a  man  cannot 
be  judged  or  should  not  be  judged  bj^  a  single 
expression.  There  is  sometimes  an  ambiguity 
in  language  ;  but  I  judge  of  a  man's  mean- 
ing, not  by  a  single  expression,  but  by  his 
general  expressions,  and  comparing  his  views 
as  expressed  at  diftercnt  times.  To  illustrate, 
a  man  may  preach  a  sermon ;  and  on  account 
of  an  ambiguity  in  his  language,  I  may  have 
a  doubt;  and  in  the  next  sermon  that  doubt 
may  be  entirely  removed. 

Q.  That  still  does  not  answer  the  question. 
Mr.  Waite,  it  is  not  the  man  you  are  crit- 
icising ;  but  if  you  were  to  see  that  sentence 
printed  alone  upon  a  piece  of  paper  as  a  tract, 
would  you  call  it  evangelical  ? 

A.  I  should  have  to  sit  down  and  study 
it,  and  criticise  it,  and  examine  it. 

Q.  Then  I  understand  you  to  say  that 
hearing  a  statement  once,  is  not  sufficient  for 
you  to  determine  whether  it  is  evangelical  or 
not? 

A.  Tes,  sir  ;  it  may  be  a  statement  that 
was  perfectly  clear.  If  I  should  hear  you  say 
that  you  believe  in  Christ,  and  Him  crucified, 
I  should  say  that  it  was  evangelical,  at  once. 

Q.  Do  you  regard  that  as  a  clear  state- 
ment that  I  have  just  read  ? 

A.  What  do  you  mean  by  clearness,  sir ; 
in  language  or  in  theology  ? 

Q.  No,  sir ;  so  that  its  meaning  can  be 
understood.  Clear  in  the  sense  you  would 
regard  it  as  clear. 

A.  I  could  not  express  an  opinion  in  re- 
lation to  it  without  seeing  the  context — what 
has  gone  before  it  and  after  it.  I  am  not  in 
the  habit  of  construing  any  document  by  a 
single  sentence  taken  from  it.  Perhaps  it  is 
a  misfortune  of  my  profession. 

Q.  Then  I  understand,  Mr.  Waite,  that 
if  you  were  to  hear  that  sentiment  expressed, 
you  would  not  be  able  to  say  after  you  had 
heard  it,  whether  it  was  an  evangelical  sen- 
timent or  not  ? 

A.    I  do  not  wish  to  say  that,  sir,  at  all. 

Q.  Well,  you  say  you  cannot  tell  whether 
this  is  an  evangelical  sentiment  because  you 
have  not  studied  it. 

A.  I  did  not  say  that ;  I  said  that  in  hear- 
ing it,  we  might  hear  it  as  disconnected  from 
something  that  might  explain  it.  I  did  not, 
and  do  not,  form  any  opinion  in  relation  to 
it.  So  far  as  I  could  discover,  it  was  evan- 
gelical, but  if  I  criticised  it  carefully,  I 
might  come  to  a  difi'erent  conclusion  ;  but,  so 


far  as  I  could  discover,  there  was  nothing  in 
it   that  was  non-evangelical. 

Q.  I  will  read  the  statement  again,  be- 
cause I  would  like  to  know  what  Mr.  Waite 
thinks  about  that  thing. 

A.  I  will  toll  you  what  my  notion  of 
evangelical  religion  is. 

Q.  I  would  like  an  answer  to  this  ques- 
tion. 

Mr.  Noyes  — I  very  reluctantly  enter  a  pro- 
test again.  It  seems  to  me  that  there  is 
never  going  to  be  an  end  to  this.  I.  want  to 
give  the  prosecution  every  possible  advan- 
tage. 

Prof  PaUon.—l  think  Mr.  Waite  will  an- 
swer the  question,  if  I  put  it  before  him 
clearly. 

The  Moderator. — The  general  purport  of 
your  question  is  plain  and  makes  it  admissi- 
ble, but  I  would  suggest  that  there  must  be 
some  limit  to  this  effort  to  clear  up. 

Prof.  Patton. — Certainly,  sir. 

Mr.  Noyes. — I  should  think,  Mr.  Modera- 
tor, that  the  witness  has,  three  or  four  times, 
answered  his  question  ;  but  not,  perhaps,  in 
the  way  in  which  the  prosecutor  wanted  him  to. 

Prof.  Patton. — I  want  an  answer  to  the 
question. 

The  Moderator. — I  will  allow  the  prosecu- 
tor one  more  question,  for  the  purpose  of  de- 
termining the  point  which  he  wishes. 

Prof.  Patton. — I  will  read  the  statement 
now  very  distinctly,  [liepeating  the  extract 
which  was  last  read  to  the  witness  by  the 
prosecutor.]  Now  I  ask  Mr.  Waite  whether 
that  is  an  evangelical  sentiment  ? 

A.  I  do  not  think  it  is  very  unevan- 
gelical. 

Q.  Well,  I  desire  a  categorical  answer  to 
the  question  ;  is  that  an  evangelical  senti- 
ment ? 

A.  I  can't  tell  until  I  should  hear  the 
whole  sermon.  You  asked  me  whether  it 
was  an  evangelical  sermon. 

Q.  I  did  not  say  "  sermon  ;"  I  said  "  sen- 
timent." 

Mr.  Noyes. — He  cannot  tell  whether  it  is 
evangelical  until  he  sees  the  connection  in 
which  it  stands.  He  wants  to  know  how  it 
may  be  qualified  by  what  goes  before,  or 
after. 

The  Moderator.  —  That  point  is  correct. 
The  witness  has  stated  again  and  again,  that 
he  cannot  say  whether  such  a  sentence  is 
evangelical  in  a  disconnected  form. 

Prof.  Patton. — I  understand  the  witness 


TESTIMONY  OF  WITNESSES. 


49 


to  say  that  he  cannot  tell  on  hearing  this 
sentence,  whether  it  is  evangelical,  or  not. 

A.  I  said  this,  Mr.  Patton,  that  I  did  not 
feel  competent  to  judgeof  it  disconnected  with 
what  went  before  and  after  it.  That  is  what 
I  intended  to  say  ;  that  I  should  construe  it 
with  what  had  preceded  it,  and  succeeded  it 
of  the  context. 

Q.  But  this  has  nothing  before  it,  and 
nothing  after  it,  as  I  state  it  to  you.  I  sim- 
ply want  a  categorical  answer  to  that. 

The  Modei^ator. — The  witness  declares  dis- 
tinctly as  I  understand  it,  his  incompetency 
to  pronounce  upon  the  evangelical  character 
of  what  you  have  read  apart  from  its  con- 
nection. 

Prof.  Patton. — Is  the  witness  satisfied  with 
the  answer  ? 

A.  I  am  satisfied  with  the  answer  as  far 
as  I  am  concerned.  If  you  want  any  pri- 
vate opinion  in  relation  to  it,  I  am  perfectly 
willing  to  give  it. 

Q.  Mr.  Waite,  do  j'ou  regard  this  prose- 
cution of  Mr.  Swing,  as  an  attack  upon  your 
church  ? 

A.     We  do,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  regard  it  as  an  attack  upon  the 
eldership  of  your  church  ? 

A.  No,  sir,  not  upon  the  eldership  of  the 
church,  except  in  this  respect ;  we  are,  as  we 
believe,  Presbyterians;  we  have  been,  all  of 
us,  educated  in  the  Presbyterian  church. 
Mr.  Swing  has  been  willing  and  ready  to  be 
governed  by  our  advice ;  and  if  he  has  in  any 
manner  (which  I  do  not  believe)  departed 
from  the  standards  of  the  church  as  they  are 
generally  understood  from  the  pulpits,  we 
are  responsible  for  it,  because  he  would  be 
governed,  as  I  have  no  doubt,  by  the  express 
wish  of  his  session.  I  never  saw  a  man 
more  willing  to  listen  to  suggestions  than  Mr. 
Swing. 

Q.  Has  your  session  ever  made  any  sug- 
gestion to  Mr.  Swing  ? 

A.  No,  sir,  for  the  reason  that  we  have 
been  entirely  satisfied  with  Mr.  Swing's 
preaching.  I  want  to  say  that  the  session 
of  the  church,  before  these  charges  were 
made,  expressed  themselves  as  a  unit  in  be- 
ing entirely  satisfied  with  his  orthodoxy. 

Q.  Do  you  reside  in  Chicago  all  the  time, 
Mr.  Waite  ? 

A.     Yes,  sir  ;  this  is  my  home. 

Q.  Are  you  familiar  with  the  action  of 
the  session  ? 

A.     I  am,  sir;  there  may  have  been  meet- 


ings of  the  session  when  I  have  not  boon 
present. 

Q.  Haven't  you  been  absent  during  the 
last  year  or  so  ? 

A.     I  have  been  more  or  less  absent,  sir. 

Q.  You  have  no  recollection  then,  of  the 
session  giving  any  advice  to  Mr.  Swing  in 
reference  to  a  more  pronounced  mode  oi' 
preaching? 

A.     No,  sir. 

Q.  Or  in  reference  to  his  making  appeals 
to  his  people  at  the  ends  of  his  sermons  ? 

A.     No,  sir  ;  never. 

KE- DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  EEV.  MR.  NOTES. 

I  would  like  to  ask  you  whether,  if  you 
were  to  see  this  sentiment  by  itself,  you 
would  regard  it  as  an  evangelical  sentiment, 
"  Wherefore,  we  are  justified  by  Christ,  and 
not  by  faith  alone,"  if  you  were  to  see  that 
sentiment  apart,  and  by  itself,  would  you  be 
perfectly  sure  that  it  was  an  evangelical  sen- 
timent ? 

A.     Kead  it  over  again. 

Q.     (Repeating  the  sentence.) 

A.  I  should  say — is  that  a  question  from 
the  bible  ? 

Q.     I  believe  it  is,  sir. 

A.  I  am  in  the  habit  of  accepting  the 
bible  as  Evangelical. 

Q.  I  call  to  mind  an  expression  which 
was  used  in  the  inaugural  address  of  the  pro- 
secutor in  this  case,  as  he  was  inducted  into 
the  chair  of  theology,  to  the  effect  that  men 
must  not  be  attached  to  scripture  phrase- 
ology ;  what  would  you  think  of  such  a  sen- 
timent as  that — of  such  language  as  that  ? 

Prof.  Patton. — Will  the  defense  be  kind 
enough  to  read  that  sentence ;  I  do  not  re- 
member to  have  used  that  sentence. 

Mr.  Noyes. — Y^'our  memory  will  be  re- 
freshed on  it  in  time. 

Prof.  Patton. — I  would  like  to  have  the 
sentence  read. 

Mr.  Noyes. — The  question  is  whether  lan- 
guage to  the  effect  that  men  must  not  be 
attached  to  scriptural  phraseology,  is  not 
language  that  is  liable  to  mislead ;  it  is  evan- 
gelical. 

A.  I  should  rather  have  the  whole  sen- 
tence before  I  pass  upon  it. 

Q.  Mr.  Waite,  are  you  a  member  of  the 
session  of  the  Fourth  Church  ? 

A.     I  am,  sir. 

Q.     Do  you  remember  anything  of  a  paper 


50 


THE  TEIAL  OF  KEY.  DAVID  SWING. 


recently  put  forth  as  purporting  to  come  from 
that  session  ? 

A.     I  do,  sir. 

Q.  Is  it  within  your  knowledge  that 
other  members  of  that  church  signed  it  ? 

A.  I  saw  it  signed  by  all  the  members  of 
the  session,  except  Mr.  Hurlbut;  I  did  not 
see  him  sign  it. 

Rev.  Mr.  Brohston. — I  would  ask  you  a 
question,  if  you  have  no  objection. 

A.     None  at  all. 

Q.  You  have  spoken,  I  think,  in  rela- 
tion to  Mr.  Swing's  opinions  with  regard  to 
future  punishment.  Did  you  understand 
that  his  views  were  with  regard  to  the  nature 
of  that  punishment,  and  its  duration  ? 

A.  I  understand  his  views  to  be  that  it  is 
an  eternal  punishment. 

Q.     Eternal  ? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  kind  of  a  punishment  was  it  ? 
Purgatorial — limited  ? 

A.  I  did  not  catch  all  the  question.  If  it 
can  be  repeated,  or  you  will  speak  louder,  I 
will  answer. 

Q.  I  say  was  this  punishment  everlasting, 
or  was  it  limited  ;  something  like  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Catholic  church,  purgatorial — to 
be  for  a  time,  and  then  he  will  be  cleansed 
from  his  sins,  and  admitted  afterwards  to  the 
heavenly  regions  ? 

A.     I  believe  it  was  everlasting. 

Rev.  Dr.  Patterson. — I  would  like  to  ask 
Mr.  Waite  a  question ;  whether  in  hearing 
these  recognitions  of  Evangelical  doctrine 
from  Mr.  Swing,  he  ever  gave  any  intima- 
tion in  any  way  in  which  you  had  a  suspicion 
that  he  did  not  use  the  terms  which  he  em- 
ployed in  an  Evangelical  sense  ? 

A.  I  understood  them  to  be  used  in  the 
commonly  accepted  sense.  He  never  gave 
any  intimation  to  me  that  they  were  used  in 
any  other  sense  than  the  commonly  accepted 
sense,  I  understood  them  to  be  in  the  sense  in 
which  I  had  been  accustomed  to  accept  them. 

Mr.  Noyes. — I  would  ask  Mr.  Waite  one 
more  question,  whether  you  have  any  know- 
ledge as  to  Mr.  Hurlbut's  signature  to  that 
paper  put  forth  by  the  session.  You  did  not 
see  him  sign  it  ? 

A.     I  did  not,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  any  knowledge  in  regard  to 
his  signing  it? 

A.    Nothing,  except  hearsay. 

Testimony  read  and  approved  by  witness. 
[Signed,]  Horace  T.  Waite. 


The  prosecution  presented  the  following 
motions. 

I  move  that  that  portion  of  Mr.  Waite's 
testimony  be  stricken  out  which  refers  to  a 
period  prior  to  the  formation  of  the  Fourth 
Church,  upon  the  ground  that  it  is  not  rele- 
vant to  the  allegation  set  forth  in  specifica- 
tion five. 

I  move  that  that  portion  of  Mr.  Waite's 
testimony  be  stricken  out  which  refers  to  a 
period  between  the  fire  and  the  present  time, 
because  it  has  been  admitted  that  the  ser- 
mons to  which  that  testimony  refers  are  still 
in  existence. 

I  move  that  that  portion  of  Mr.  Waite's 
testimony  be  stricken  out  which  refers  to 
private  conversations,  because  it  is  not  rele- 
vant to  the  allegation  as  set  forth  in  specifi- 
cation five. 

I  move  that  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Waite 
be  stricken  out  in  so  far  as  it  refers  to  his 
services  in  the  prayer  meetings  on  Wednes- 
day evenings,  because  nothing  is  alleged  in 
the  specification  with  respect  to  the  prayer 
meetings. 

I  move  that  all  the  testimony  with  respect 
to  Mr.  Swing's  sermons,  given  by  Mr. 
Waite,  be  stricken  out,  on  the  ground  that 
it  has  not  j^et  appeared  that  the  sermons  to 
which  the  testimony  relates  have  been  de- 
stroyed. 

The  motions  were  denied,  and  a  commit- 
tee, consisting  of  D.  S.  Johnson,  E.  W.  Pat- 
terson and  Elder  F.  A.  Kiddle,  was  appoint- 
ed to  present  reasons  for  the  denial. 

The  prosecutor  gave  notice  of  a  protest 
against  the  denial. 

After  prayer  the  Presbytery  adjourned  to 
meet  at  10  o'clock  A.  M.,  May  8th  inst. 


Friday,  Mat  8,  10  o'clock  a.  m. 

Presbytery    met    and    was    opened   with 
prayer. 
Inter  alia. 

Oliver  H.  Lee,  Esq.,  was  sworn  and  testified 
as  follows  : 

DIRECT  examination. 

Rev.  Mr.  Noyes. — Are  you  an  elder  in  the 
Fourth  Presbyterian  Church  of  this  city  ? 

A.     I  am,  sir. 

Q.  Were  you  a  member  of  the  West- 
minster Church  previous  to  the  union  of 
that  church  and  the  North  Church  ? 

A.     I  was. 

Q.  Were  you  an  elder  in  any  church 
previous  to  your  services  as  an  elder  in  the 
Westminster  Church  ? 

A.     I  have  been,  sir. 

Q.  For  how  long  a  time  have  you  been  an 
elder  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  ? 

A.     Over  thirty  years. 

Q.     Has   Mr.  Swing,  in  your  judgment, 


TESTIMONY  OF  WITNESSES. 


51 


been  zealous  and  faithful  in  maintaining  the 
truths  of  the  gospel  ? 

A.     He  has. 

Q.  Has  he  been  faithful  and  diligent  in 
the  exercise  of  the  public  duties  of  his  office, 
as  manifested  to  the  Fourth  Church  ? 

A.     In  my  judgment,  he  has. 

Q.  Since  the  organization  of  the  Fourth 
Church  has  he  preached  and  taught  evangel- 
ical doctrines  ? 

A.     He  has. 

Q.  "What  do  you  consider  evangelical 
doctrines  ? 

A.  Well,  sir,  on  this  point  I  am  very 
happily  aided  by  the  definition  of  Prof.  Pat- 
ton,  which  I  propose  to  give  as  my  answer, 
in  his  own  language,  and  I  am  very  happy 
to  say  that  I  agree  with  him  fully  in  his 
definition.  I  think  the  evangelical  doctrines 
are  "that  Christ  is  a  propitiation  for  our  sins; 
that  we  have  redemption  through  his  blood  ; 
that  we  are  justified  by  faith  ;  that  there  is 
no  other  name  in  or  under  heaven  given 
among  men  whereby  we  may  be  saved  ;  that 
Jesus  is  equal  with  God,  and  is  God  mani- 
fest in  the  flesh;  that  all  scripture  is  given 
by  inspiration  of  God  ;  and  that  the  wicked 
shall  go  into  everlasting  punishment." 

Q.     In  what  specification  do  you  find  that? 

A.  Specification  five,  first  charge.  I 
could  not  make  a  better  definition,  sir. 

Q.  Taking  some  of  these  doctrines,  for 
instance,  the  doctrine  of  depravity ;  have 
you  ever  heard  Professor  Swing  preach  up- 
on that  doctrine  ? 

A.  I  have  heard  him  speak  of  it  on  a 
good  many  occasions,  in  a  good  many  ser- 
mons and  teachings. 

Prof.  Patton. — I  shall  have  to  call  for  the 
sermons. 

Elder  Lee. — Very  well,  sir ;  I  am  glad 
you  do.     What  is  the  topic? 

Rev.  Mr.  Noyes. — Depravity. 

A.  I  read  from  a  sermon  Avhich  is  in  the 
professor's  catalogue.  In  his  bundle  of  ser- 
mons I  find  this  language.  I  will  testify 
that  I  heard  him  say  these  words : 

"It  seems  to  me  we  find  this  fact  in  the 
public  conviction  of  the  utter  depravity  of 
the  masses,  and  in  the  public  approval  of 
any  one  that  can  or  wall  help  a  depraved 
soul  upward. 

"It  is  the  world's  confessed  wickedness,  it 
is  the  world's  universal  and  inborn  depravi- 
ty that  makes  the  Christian  and  moral  lead- 
ers flame  like  suns  in  the  human  sky." 


Q.     When    was    that   sermon   preached  ? 

A.  That  was  preached  since  the  fire.  It 
was  preached  in  Standard  Hall.  I  heard 
those  words  and  others  of  a  similar  tendency 
and  character. 

Prof.  Pation. — Does  counsel  offer  these 
sermons  in  evidence  ? 

Rev.  Mr.  Noyes. — They  are  in  evidence, 
sir. 

Prof.  Patton — Well,  we  should  like  to  see 
them. 

A.  It  is  a  sermon  called  "  The  World's 
Greatest  Need." 

Prof.  Patton. — Oh  !  I  have  that,  sir. 

Rev.  Mr.  Noyes. — (To  the  witness.)  Tour 
impression  of  Prof.  Swing's  preaching,  in  re- 
gard to  that  doctrine,  has  been  such  as  to 
confirm,  all  along,  the  distinct  statements 
which  you  have  read  as  from  his  sermon  ? 

A.  It  has  been,  sir,  decidedly  so,  as  in 
perfect  keeping  with  all  the  Evangelical 
preaching  I  have  heard  for  forty  years  on 
that  subject. 

Q.  Have  you  understood  him  to  preach 
the  doctrine  of  future  punishment,  the  final 
separation  of  the  righteous  from  the  wicked  ? 

A.  I  have  sir,  most  distinctly.  On  that 
point  I  beg  leave  to  read  a  little  extract  from 
a  sermon  which  Prof.  Patton  has  in  his  bun- 
dle, where  I  heard  the  following   language: 

"But  amid  all  the  fluctuations  of  patriot- 
ism, the  law  of  death  for  treason  remains 
written  on  the  statute  book  of  nations.  And 
so  in  Christianity,  however,  any  class  or  any 
age  may  rise  above  the  influence  of  penalty 
for  sin,  yet  punishment  remains  a  perpetual 
fact  in  the  economy  of  our  God.  Its  dark 
cloud  will  rise  or  fall  according  to  the  quali- 
ty of  humanity.  Wherever  there  are  hearts 
that  can  see  no  goodness  in  holiness,  none  in 
honesty,  and  in  charity,  none  in  Jesus  Christ, 
none  in  the  worship  of  God  ;  wherever  there 
are  minds  incapable  of  being  led  by  the  in- 
trinsic good  of  religion,  there  this  dark  cloud 
of  divine  wrath  is  ready  to  descend  and  to 
envelop  with  its  thunders,  the  soul  that 
cannot  and  will  not  be  enveloped  by  love. 
The  result  of  sin  expressed  in  all  religions  by 
the  word  "hell"  is  a  perpetual  influence, 
liable  to  go  and  come  as  humanity  advances 
or  retreats  in  the  path  of  intelligence  and 
morals, — but  it  must  be  a  perpetual  fact  in  a 
world  of  beings  capable  of  being  moral.  A 
world  of  sin  must  be  a  world  of  penalty." 
I  heard  him  say  further  : 

"There  is  a  Christianitv  that  will  save  the 


52 


THE  TRIAL  OF  REV.  DAVID  SWING. 


world.  It  is  not  only  a  faith,  but  it  has  a 
morality  as  essential  as  its  faith.  It  not 
only  says,  'Believe  and  be  saved,'  but  it  as- 
signs damnation  to  him  who  leads  a  wicked 
life.  There  is  a  Christianity  that  will  not 
only  fill  heaven  with  saints,  but  earth  with 
good  citizens.  In  it  Paul  and  Christ  are  not 
rudely  separated,  and  the  human  placed 
above  the  divine,  but  the  morals  of  the  gos- 
pels come  back  to  mankind,  and  the  anxiety 
for  faith  is  no  greater  than  the  hungering 
after  righteousness." 

Q.  Do  you  know  anything  about  a  paper 
that  has  been  published,  which  purports  to 
come  from  the  session  of  the  Fourth  Church? 

A.     1  do,  sir. 

Q.     Did  you  sign  that  paper  ? 

A.     I  signed  that  paper. 

Q.  Can  you  testify  whether  other  mem- 
bers of  the  session  signed  it  ? 

A.  They  all  signed  it  with  the  exception 
of  Mr.  Hurlbut,  who  was  absent  in  New 
Tork ;  and  the  moment  of  his  return  he 
wrote  me  a  note  requesting  me  to  put  his 
name  to  it  for  him,  as  he  cordially  endorsed 
it  and  wished  it  to  be  signed  by  myself  for 
him — which  I  did  ? 

CROSS-EXAMINATION  BY  PROF.  PATTON. 

Q.     What  do  you  mean  by  damnation? 

A.  I  attach  an  Evangelical  meaning  to  it, 
sir. 

Q.     What  do  you  mean  by   Evangelical? 

A.  I  have  given  you  an  explanation  of 
that,  sir.  The  strict  meaning  of  the  term 
from  the  dictionary  would  be  the  religion  or 
the  faith  based  upon  the  teachings  of  the 
four  evangelists,  or  perhaps,  the  New  Testa- 
ment, in  a  wider  sense. 

Q.  Would  you  accept  that  as  your  defini- 
tion of  the  word  evangelical  ? 

A.  I  accept  that  as  defined  in  the  specifi- 
cation number  five — Evangelical   Doctrines. 

Q.     And  not  as  defined  in  the  dictionary  ? 

A.     I  consider  them  synonymous. 

Q.  That  is  a  matter  of  opinion.  Would 
you  mention  the  churches  you  regard  as 
evangelical  ? 

A.  No,  sir.  I  do  not  consider  this  as  re- 
levant testimony,  and  as  bearing  upon  any 
point  upon  which  I  have  been  examined,  but 
I  will  try  to  give  you  answers  to  your  ques- 
tions. 

Q.  Allow  me  to  explain.  You  testified 
that  you  heard  Mr.  Swing  preach  certain 
evangelical  doctrines.  Now,  before  I  can 
attach  the  proper  value  to  Mr.   Lee's  testi- . 


mony,  it  is  necessary  for  me  to  know  what 
ho  regards  as  evangelical  ? 

Q.  As  far  as  I  know,  sir,  the  Presbyte- 
rian churches  are  evangelical  churches. 

Q.     And  the  Methodist  churches  ? 

A.  I  believe  them  to  be  ;  they  call  them 
so. 

Q.     The  Baptist  church? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.     The  Roman  Catholic  church  ? 

A.     No,  sir,  I  do  not. 

Q.     The  Swedenborgian  ? 

A.  I  don't  know  anything,  about  their 
faith,  sir. 

Q.     The  Unitarian? 

A.  I  do  not  know  what  their  creed  is.  I 
do  not  consider  them  evangelical. 

Q.     You  do  not  ? 

A.     No,  sir. 

Q.    The  Ilniversalist  ? 

A.     No,  sir. 

Q.  You  do  not  regard  them  as  evangel- 
ical? 

A.     No,  sir. 

Q.  Then  you  understand  that  Mr.  Swing 
has  taught  the  evangelical  doctrines 
in  such  a  sense  as  they  would  not  be  taught 
by  the  Universalists  and  the  Unitarians? 

A.  I  have  said  no  such  thing,  sir.  I  said 
he  has  taught  the  evangelical  doctrines  of 
our  church. 

Q.  I  will  ask  you  this  question.  Do  the 
Universalists  preach  evangelical  doctrines  ? 

A.  I  can  judge  of  that  question  no  better 
than  you  can. 

Q.  If  it  did  teach  evangelical  doctrines, 
would  the  Universalist  denomination  be 
evangelical  ? 

A.  I  cannot  reply  to  a  question  of  that 
kind. 

Q.  Then,  did  I  understand  you  to  say  the 
right  of  a  church  to  be  called  evangelical 
does  not  depend  upon  its  holding  certain 
doctrines? 

A.     I  have  not  said  that,  sir. 

Q.  Then  why  do  you  say  that  the  Uni- 
versalists are  not  evangelical,  and  the  Pres- 
byterians are  ? 

A.  If  I  understand  one  tenet  of  the  Uni- 
versalist faith,  it  is  that  all  men  will  be  saved 
irrespective  of  Christ's  sacrifice.  That  is  all 
I  know  about  the  tenets  of  the  Universal- 
ists? 

Q.  That  is  your  idea  of  the  Universalist 
Church  ? 


TESTIMONY  OF  WITNESSES. 


63 


A.  That  is  my  impression,  without  know- 
ing anything  of  theology. 

Q.  Then  if  you  should  hear  a  Universal- 
ist  preach  in  reference  to  future  punishment, 
you  would  be  surprised,  wouldn't  you? 

A.  I  don't  know,  sir.  I  have  been  sur- 
prised at  a  good  many  things. 

Q.  That  is  hardly  a  categorical  answer. 
But  I  understand  Mr.  Lee  to  say  that  the 
Universalists  are  not  evangelical. 

A.     That  is  my  expression. 

Q.  And  I  understand  you  to  say  that  the 
Universalists  do  not  believe  in  future  punish- 
ment ? 

A.     That  would  be  my  impression. 

Q.  And  it  is  because  they  do  not  believe 
in  future  punishment  that  you  do  not  regard 
them  as  evangelical  ? 

A.  That  is  one  of  the  points  in  which 
thoy  are  not  evangelical,  I  believe. 

Q.  And  that  is  one  of  the  reasons  why 
you  do  not  consider  them  evangelical  ? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  any  other  reasons  why  you 
do  not  believe  them  to  be  evangelical  ? 

A.  I  have  not  enough  knowledge  of  their 
faith  to  state. 

Q.  So,  if  you  were  asked  why  the  Uni- 
versalists were  not  evangelical,  you  would 
say  it  is  because  they  do  not  believe  in  future 
punishment? 

This  question  was  objected  to  by  Mr. 
Noyes. 

The  Moderator. — I  regard  the  question  ob- 
jected to  as  admissible. 

Prof.  Patton. — Then  I  will  proceed.  Mr. 
Lee  says  he  does  not  regard  the  Universalists 
as  evangelical,  because  he  does  not  believe 
that  they  hold  to  future  punishment.  Then 
I  take  it  that  you  regard  the  passage  you 
quoted  from  the  sermon  bearing  upon  future 
punishment,  as  proving  that  Mr.  Swing 
holds  to  the  evangelical  idea  of  it  ? 

A.  I  hold  that,  in  my  opinion,  is  an  evan- 
gelical sentiment  as  far  as  I  can  judge. 

Q.  And  as  proving,  therefore,  that  he 
preaches  the  evangelical  doctrines  on  that 
subject  ? 

A.     It  bears  upon  that  subject. 

Q.     But  does  not  prove  it  ? 

A.  I  think  that,  in  connection  with  his 
other  teachings  I  have  heard,  does  prove  it. 
This  is  but  one  detailed  sentence  that  caught 
my  eye  as  I  was  leaving  my  house  this  morn- 
ing.    If  I  had  all  his  sermons  I  could  per- 


haps produce  as  large  a  package  as  the  pro- 
secutor has. 

Rev.  Mr.  Taylor. — In  what  church  have 
you  held  the  ofiice  of  elder  before  your  con- 
nection with  the  Fourth  Church? 

A.     I  was  an  elder  in  the Church, 

in  South  Brooklyn,  of  which  the  prosecutor 
was  afterward  pastor.  I  was  afterward  el- 
der in  the  North  Presbyterian  Church,  in 
New  York ;  and  so  remained  until  I  came 
to  this  city.  I  was  an  elder  of  the  West- 
minster Church,  and  at  the  present  time  I 
am  an  elder  of  the  Fourth  Church. 

Rev.  Dr.  Patterson. — I  would  like  to  ask 
this  question  :  You  say,  in  general,  that  you 
regard  the  Universalists  as  not  evangelical 
because  they  do  not  hold  to  the  doctrine  of 
future  punishment,  —  whether  you  mean 
future  and  endless  punishment  ? 

A.  I  cannot  make  these  theological  dis- 
tinctions. I  use  the  word  in  the  popular 
sense.  I  have  never  made  theology  my 
study,  or  the  tenets  of  other  sects.  I  have 
tried  humbly  and  faithfully  to  study  the 
tenets  of  my  own  church.  That  is  about  as 
much  as  I  have  had  time  and  inclination  to 
attend  to. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  you  under- 
stand that  the  Universalists  do  not  hold  to 
any  punishment  beyond  the  present  world  ? 

A.  No,  sir,  I  have  an  idea  that  they  vary 
very  much  among  themselves  about  that. 
Some  to  a  limited  punishment ;  and  some  no 
punishment  at  all,  as  I  understand  the  case. 
My  knowledge  is  very  superficial  upon  those 
points. 

Q.  You  mean  to  say,  then,  that  the  Uni- 
versalists do  not  hold  to  the  doctrines  of  fu- 
ture punishment  in  an  evangelical  sense, 
that  is,  the  doctrine  of  future  and  eternal 
punishment  ? 

A.  They  do  not  hold  tc  that  in  the  sense 
that  Presbyterians  do. 

Rev.  Mr.  Paris. — I  would  ask,  in  connec- 
tion with  the  last  question  and  answer,  if 
you  regard  any  Universalists  as  holding  to 
future  punishment  as  far  as  covered  by  the 
expressions  you  quoted  from  Prof.  Swing's 
sermon  ? 

A.  The  question  is  a  little  involved.  I 
do  not  understand  it  fully. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  or  not  any 
Universalists  hold  to  future  punishment, 
reaching  to  the  extent  expressed  in  the  ex- 
tract from  the  sermon  you  read  of  Mr. 
Swing's? 


54 


THE  TKIAL  OF  KEV.  DAVID  SWING. 


A.  I  have  no  acquaintance  with  Univer- 
salists  that  I  know  of;  and  I  cannot  answer 
it. 

Q.  I  would  like  to  ask  another  question. 
Do  you  or  do  you  not  know  whether  the 
elders,  either  jointly  or  severally,  have  at 
any  time,  once  or  more,  asked  Mr.  Swing  to 
be  more  explicit  and  practical  in  his  preach- 
ing? 

A,     I  don't  recollect  anything  of  the  kind. 
Rev.  Mr.  Blackhirn. — Did  you  ever  hear 
Prof.  Swing  preach  the  doctrine  of  the   re- 
storation of  the  wicked  ? 

A.  I  never  heard  anything  which  seemed 
like  it. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  hear  him  preach  the  doc- 
trine of  the  annihilation  of  the  wicked? 
A.  I  never  heard  anything  of  the  kind. 
Rev.  Mr.  Glen  Wood.-Didi  you  ever  hear  any- 
thing from  Prof.  Swing,  either  in  his  public 
ministrations  in  the  pulpit  on  the  Sabbath, 
or  in  his  Wednesday  evening  lecture  which 
led  you  to  think  he  was  in  any  way  a  Uni- 
tarian ? 

A.  On  the  contrary,  sir,  I  have  heard 
him  repeatedly  give  such  utterances  as  con- 
vinced me  that  he  was  decidedly  opposed  to 
that  form  of  faith. 

Prof.  Pation. — What  do  you  understand 
Unitarianism  to  be  ? 

A.  I  understand  it  to  be  something  that 
differs  with  our  Presbyterian  view. 

Q.  That  is  correct.  What  do  you  under- 
stand the  difference  to  consist  in? 

A.  I  am  not  versed  in  the  Unitarian 
tenets.  1  never  read  a  book  on  it  that  I 
know  of. 

Q.  How  would  you  be  able  to  say  that  Mr. 
Swing's  preaching  contradicted  a  thing  about 
which  you  don't  know  anything  ? 

A.  Well,  sir,  I  only  know  this;  that  a  few 
years  ago,  Prof.  Swing  delivered  a  very 
strong  argument  against  Unitarianism  in  the 
pulpit  of  the  church  to  which  I  belonged, 
and,  in  a  few  days,  Kobert  Collyer  came  out 
with  a  very  severe  article  against  him, 
headed,  "David  Swing's  Mistakes,"  trying 
to  controvert  and  upset  the  arguments  of  that 
sermon.  A  few  days  after  Robert  Laird  Col- 
lier came  out  with  a  very  strong  article 
headed,  "David  Swing,  a  man  of  Straw,"  in 
which  he  attempted  to  overthrow  and  upset 
the  arguments  of  that  sermon. 

Q.  Can  you  tell  me  when  that  sermon  was 
delivered  ? 

A.     I  cannot  precisely.     It  is  the  same 


sermon  Mr.  Waite  referred  to.  I  tried  hard 
to  get  it  yesterday.  I  scoured  the  city  for  it 
and  couldn't  find  it.  It  is  a  good  while  ago. 
Rev.  Mr.  Napes. — It  was  destroyed  in  the 
great  fire  like  the  Shufeldt  correspondence. 

Prof.  Paiton.-  -That  sermon  was  preached 
before  the  organization  of  the  Fourth  church, 
as  I  understand  it? 
A.     It  was,  sir. 

Rev.  Mr.  Blackburn. — When  you  under- 
stood him  to  be  preaching  against  Unitarian- 
ism, did  he  use  the  word  "Unitarianism?" 

A.  I  can't  tell,  sir,  precisely,  whether  he 
used  that  word  or  whether  he  described  it 
with  other  words.  It  was  well  understood, 
however,  by  the  Unitarians  what  he  meant. 
Rev.  Mr.  Glen  Wood. — Did  I  understand  you 
to  say  that  this  sermon  on  Unitarianism  was 
destroyed  in  the  fire  ? 

A.  So  I  have  been  told — that  particular 
sermon.  I  would  say  that  that  is  not  the 
only  instance,  by  any  means,  in  which  I 
have  heard  Mr.  Swing  preach  in  opposition 
to  that  form  of  faith  and  show  his  people  the 
fallacies  of  that  belief. 

Prof.  Patton. — I  would  like  to  ask  the 
counsel  if  that  sermon  was  destroyed  in  the 
fire? 

Rev.  Mr.  Noyes. — Yes,  sir,  that  particular 
sermon. 

Prof.  Patton. — I  do  not  wish  to  raise  any 
question,  but  simply  for  my  own  sake,  and 
for  the  record  I  wish  to  object  to  the  recep- 
tion of  that  portion  of  the  testimony  before 
the  organization  of  the  Fourth  church.  The 
Moderator  will  see  the  propriety  of  my  hav- 
ing the  record  preserved. 

Mr.  Riddle. — Was  objection  made  before 
the  testimony  was  all  in  of  this  witness  ? 

Prof.  Patton. — I   made   objections    to   the 
questions  at  the  time  they  were  asked. 
Testimony  read  atid  approved  by  witness. 
(Signed,)  Oliver  H.  Lee. 

The  prosecutor  here  objected  to  that  part 
of  Mr.  Lee's  testimony  which  referred  to  a 
time  prior  to  the  organization  of  the  Fourth 
church,  as  not  relevant  to  the  allegation  set 
.forth  in  Specification  5th,  Charge  I. 

Henry  W.  King,  Esq.,  was  duly  sworn  and 
testified  as  follows : 

DIRECT   EXAMINATION    BY  REV.  MR.  NOYES. 

Q.     Are  you  an  elder  in  the  Fourth  Pres- 
byterian church,  in  this  city  ? 
A.     Yes,  sir. 
Q.     Were  you  an  elder  in  the  North  or 


TESTIMONY  OF  WITNESSES. 


55 


Westminster  churches  previous  to  the  union 
of  those  two  churches  ? 

A.  I  was  an  elder  in  the  "Westminster 
church. 

Q.  How  long  a  period  of  time  does  your 
service  as  elder  cover — the  whole  period  of 
Mr.  Swing's  ministry? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Has  Mr.  Swing,  in  your  judgment, 
always  been  zealous  and  faithful  in  main- 
taining the  truths  of  the  gospel? 

A.     He  has,  sir,  in  my  judgment. 

Q.  Has  he  been  faithful  and  diligent  In 
the  exercise  of  the  public  duties  of  his  office? 

A.     He  has,  sir. 

Q.  Both  as  minister  of  the  "Westminster 
church  and  as  minister,  subsequently,  of  the 
Fourth  church  ? 

A.     He  has,  sir. 

Q.  Has  he  been  accustomed  to  preach  and 
to  teach  the  doctrines  commonly  called  evan- 
gelical ? 

A.     I  have  so  supposed,  always,  sir. 

Q.  Those  doctrines  which  are  set  forth  in 
this  indictment,  under   Specification   Fifth? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  anything  of  a  paper 
signed  by  the  Fourth  church,  purporting  to 
come  from  them  ? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.     Did  you  sign  that  paper  ? 

A.     I  did,  sir. 

Q.  It  is  within  your  knowledge  that  the 
other  members  of  the  session  signed  that 
paper  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  it  is  within  my  knowledge 
that  the  other  members  signed.  Some  of  them 
directed  their  signatures  to  be  appended,  who 
were  not  present. 

CROSS-EXAMINATION    BY  PROF.    PATTON. 

Q.  I  understood  you  to  say  that  you  sup- 
posed Mr.  Swing  to  preach  the  evangelical 
doctrines? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.     It  is,  then,  a  matter  of  opinion  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  I  suppose  it  is  a  matter  of 
opinion. 

Q.  Do  you  admit  that  you  are  liable  to  be 
mistaken  on  matters  of  this  kind? 

A.     "Well,  sir,  I  think  it  is  human  to  err. 

Q.  Y'ou  simplj'  propose  to  give  your  opin- 
ion as  to  those  doctrines  ? 

A.     That  was  the  question  asked  me,  sir. 

Q.  Can  you  state  one  of  the  doctrines 
you  heard  him  preach  ? 

A,     I  think  I  have  heard  him  preach  on 


all  of  the  evangelical  doctrines,  such  as  sal- 
vation through  Jesus  Christ. 

Q.     Salvation  through  Jesus  Christ  ? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.  "Would  you  specify  particular  times 
and  places  ? 

A.     No,  sir,  I  could  not. 

Q.     Has  it  been  since  the  fire  ? 

A.     Oh,  yes  ;  since  and  before. 

Prof.  Patton. — I  would  ask  the  counsel 
if  the  sermons  preached  since  the  fire  are  in 
existence  ? 

Rev.  Ml'.  Noyes. — I  am  unable  to  say,  pos- 
itively. I  have  no  doubt  many  of  them  are, 
but  whether  they  are  all  or  not,  I  could  not 
say.  I  think  it  was  stated,  yesterday,  that 
one  had  disappeared  at  the  Seminary.  And, 
as  to  the  others,  my  recollection  is  that  the 
defendant  stated  he  had  the  sermons.  I  can 
only  give  an  impression,  not  being  under 
oath,  or  on  the  witness  stand. 

Prof.  Patton. — I  simply  object  to  the  in- 
troduction of  parole  testimony,  in  so  far  as  it 
respects  the  sermons  preached  since  the  fire, 
on  the  ground  that  the  sermons  referred  to 
are  still  in  existence.  Please  record  my  ob- 
jection-? "Will  the  moderator  rule  on  the  ob- 
jection ? 

Rev.  Mr.  Trowbridge. — "Was  not  that  testi- 
mony given  in  answer  to  the  prosecutor's 
own  question  ? 

Rev.  Mr.  Noyes. — This  point  raised  by  the 
prosecutor  was  decided  yesterday,  and  ad- 
versely to  his  request. 

Prof.  Patton. — I  do  not  propose  to  debate 
the  question.  I  simply  ask  the  ruling  of  the 
moderator. 

The  Moderator. — Before  I  rule  upon  it,  I 
would  listen  to  some  statements. 

Rev.  Mr.  Noyes. — With  all  respect  to  you, 
Mr.  Moderator,  it  is  not  your  province  to 
rule  upon  a  matter  which  has  been  decided 
by  the  Presbytery.  The  Presbytery  voted 
once  or  twice  specifically  yesterday  upon  this 
question  upon  which  a  ruling  is  now  desired  ; 
and  having  done  so,  it  does  not  seem  to  me 
to  be  the  province  of  the  Moderator  to  rule 
on  this  question. 

The  Moderator. — That  seems  to  me  to  be  a 
test  \\Q\Y  of  it,  Prof.  Patton.  Your  objec- 
tion covering  substantially  this  ground,  was 
repeatedly  voted  down  yesterday,  and  it 
would  be  hardly  incumbent  upon  me  to  re- 
verse that  by  any  decision  of  mine. 

Prof.  Ration. — I  ask  that  my  objection  be 
entered.     Mr.  King,  could  you  recall  a  state- 


56 


THE  TRIAL  OF  EEV.  DAVID  SWING. 


ment  which  you  would  regard  as  preaching 
salvation  by  Christ? 

A.  I  don't  know  that  I  exactly  under- 
stand you. 

Q.  I  will  state  it  in  another  way.  You 
say  Mr.  Swing  has  preached  the  doctrine  of 
salvation  by  Christ  ? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  I  should  like  for  you  to  tell  me 
what  he  said  when  he  preached  that  doc- 
trine ? 

A.  Well,  of  course,  sir,  I  could  not  quote 
any  of  Mr.  Swing's  words. 

Rev.  Mr.  Noyes. — Mr.  Moderator,  the  wit- 
nesses for  the  prosecution,  to  prove  that 
charge  regarding  the  call  to  the  ministry, 
were  not  asked,  nor  did  the  defense,  in  the 
cross-examination,  ask  for  the  very  words  of 
the  discourse.  The  Prosecutor  distinctly  re- 
fused at  a  certain  stage  of  that  examination 
to  admit  an  abstract  from  a  newspaper,  made 
by  a  reporter  at  the  very  time  the  sermon 
was  delivered,  deciding  and  distinctly  stating 
to  this  court  that  the  recorded  impressions  of 
witnesses  were  of  more  value  than  the  ab- 
stracts of  the  reporter,  it  is  with  ill  grace, 
therefore,  that  he  comes  here  now  and  makes 
these  objections. 

Prof.  Paiton. — Mr.  King,  you  say  you 
have  heard  Mr.  Swing  preach  on  the  doc- 
trine— on  all  the  evangelical  doctrines? 

A.  I  should  say  that  I  had,  sir,  a  great 
many  times. 

Q.     You  mentioned  Salvation  by  Christ  ? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q,     Would  you  mention  another  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  The  Final  and  Eternal  Sep- 
aration of  the  Eighteous  and  the  Just. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  when  that  was 
preached  ? 

A.  The  Eighteous  and  the  Wicked,  I 
should  say.  Well,  I  have  heard  him  preach 
on  that  topic  more  than  once,  but  I  could  not 
indicate  any  special  time. 

Q.     Twice? 

A.  Oh,  I  should  think  a  dozen  or  twenty 
times. 

Q.     Do  you  recall  any  particular  sermons  ? 

A.     Not  at  this  moment,  sir. 

Q.     Do  you  recall  any  particular  passage  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  had  not  expected  to  be 
called  as  a  witness,  and  I  did  not  summon 
my  memory  at  all. 

Q.  Would  you  mention  another  doctrine 
that  you,  perhajis,  have  heard  him  preach  ? 

A.     Well,  I  don't  know  that  there  are  any 


of  the  leading  doctrines  but  what  he  has 
preached  upon.  I  do  not  think  he  has  ever 
omitted  any  of  them.  I  know  that  the  one 
that  I  first  mentioned — "Salvation  Through 
the  Blood  of  Christ"— has  been  rather  a 
central  topic  with  him. 

Q.     He  preached  it  frequently  ? 

A.     Yes,  sir,  frequently. 

Q.  So  much  so  that  3'ou  would  not  regard 
it  as  at  all  unusual  ? 

A.  Well,  no — well,  I  think  he  has  per- 
haps preached  on  Christ  as  the  great  central 
figure;  more,  perhaps,  than  most  ministers 
do. 

Q.  Suppose  that  you  should  hear  a  man 
speak  of  Christ  as  the  Saviour,  and  speak  of 
Him  as  the  Saviour,  every  Sabbath,  would 
you  necessarily  infer  that  he  was  teaching 
the  evangelical  doctrine  of  salvation  by 
Christ? 

A.     No,  sir. 

Q.  Then  I  would  like  to  know  what  you 
understand  by  salvation  by  Christ? 

A.  I  understand,  in  its  broadest  and  full- 
est scope,  salvation  through  Jesus  Christ  as 
the  atoning  sacrifice  for  the  sins  of  men. 

Q.  What  do  you  mean  by  the  atoning 
sacrifice. 

A.  That  through  His  death  He  has  made 
us  at  one  with  God,  if  we  accept. 

Q.  You  have  heard  that  doctrine  dis- 
tinctly stated  by  him,  you  say. 

A.     Yes,  sir,  distinctly. 

Q.  Do  you  think  that  the  Presbyterian 
church  is  pre-eminent  in  preaching  the  doc- 
trine of  belief  in  Christ? 

A.  Well,  I  suppose  that,  perhaps,  it 
stands  upon  a  par  with  the  Episcopal  church 
and  some  other  churches  in  that  respect. 

Q.  What  would  you  understand  by  the 
word  "  Evangelical  "  as  applied  to  churches  ? 

A.  Well,  in  its  broad  and  common  sense, 
perhaps  the  definition  would  be  wider  than 
I,  as  a  witness  here,  might  fully  state ;  but  I 
suppose  it  has  its  basis  upon  the  teachings  of 
the  Evangelists — the  teachings  of  the  New 
Testament. 

Q.  Would  you  regard  that  Testament  as 
its  basis  of  doctrine  as  an  Evangelical 
church  ? 

A.  That  would  probably  depend  upon 
what  they  deduce  from  the  doctrines  of  the 
Evangelists. 

Q.  Then  you  admit  that  it  would  be  neces- 
sary for  you  to  deduce  something  from  their 
creed  before  you  would  call  it  evangelical  ? 


TESTIMONY  OF  WITNESSES. 


67 


A.  I  should  want  to  know  their  creed  be- 
fore I  should  call  it  evangelical. 

Q.  Are  you  acquainted  with  the  creed  of 
the  Universalists  ? 

A.     No,  sir  ;  only  in  a  general  way. 

Q.  Are  you  acquainted  with  the  theology 
of  the  Unitarians,  sir  ? 

A.     No,  sir,  I  am  not. 

Q.  Are  you  in  the  habit  of  reading  theo- 
logical books  ? 

A,     "Well,  not  to  a  very  large  extent,  sir. 

Q.  Are  you  acquainted  with  the  Confes- 
sion of    Faith  ? 

A.     I  am,  sir. 

Q.  What  is  the  doctrine  of  salvation  by 
Christ,  as  taught  by  that  Confession  ? 

A.  Well,  I  suppose  the  doctrine  of  sal- 
vation by  Christ,  as  taught  there,  is  that 
Christ  was  God,  and  that  he  suffered  that 
those  who  believe  in  Him  might  rejoice. 

Q.  Can  you  conceive  of  there  being  two 
interpretations  put  upon  the  expression 
"  Christ  died  for  man  ?  " 

A,  Well,  hardly,  with  my  education  upon 
that  subject. 

Q.  So  that,  if  you  heard  a  man  say  that 
Christ  died  for  man,  you  would  not  know 
exactly  what  he  meant  ? 

A.  That  would  depend  upon  the  state- 
ment following  or  preceding,  perhaps. 

Q.  What  do  you  understand  to  be  meant 
by  "  Propitiation  for  our  sins  ?  " 

A.  I  understand  by  that,  that  man  by 
nature  was  sinful,  was  alien  to  God,  and 
that  the  mission  of  Christ  was  to  reconcile 
him  to  God,  and  those  who  believe  in  Christ 
and  who  accept  Him  as  the  only  way — those 
who  accept  Him  as  the  only  way — may  avail 
themselves  of  that  propitiation,  that  sacrifice. 

Q.  How  does  that  propitiation  affect  us 
according  to  your  view  ? 

A.  I  suppose  that  salvation  is  freely  of- 
fered to  the  world,  and  those  are  affected 
who  accept. 

Q.  Mr.  King  must  excuse  my  theological 
examination  of  him. 

A.  Yes,  sir;  it  is  a  little  difficult  for  a 
man  who  is  not  a  theologian,  to  be  croes- 
examined  by  a  man  who  is. 

Q.  I  wish  to  know  what  the  witness  un- 
derstands by  the  relation  between  the  pardon 
of  our  sins  by  God,  and  the  propitiation  for 
our  sins  by  Christ. 

Hev.  Mr.  Noyes. — I  do  not  think  it  is  fair 
for  a  trained,  polemic  theologian  thus  to  en- 
tangle and  enmesh  a  plain,  straightforward 


layman,  who  has  learned  the  things  of  Christ 
as  regards  the  spirit  of  love  to  Him  and  to 
our  fellow-men.  I  do  not  think  it  is  fair  for 
this  sort  of  procedure  to  be  taken. 

Prof.  Patton. — I  will  not  proceed.  Mr. 
King  need  not  be  ashamed  of  his  examina- 
tion. 

Rev.  Mr.  Noyes. — Probably  there  is  not  one 
layman  in  a  thousand  who  could  satisfacto- 
rily speak  upon  those  points. 

Rev.  Mr.  Glen  Wood. — I  doubt,  sir,  whether 
one  half  the  ministers  could  begin  to  answer 
as  well  as  Mr.  King  has. 

Prof.  Patton. — Do  you  regard  the  prosecu- 
tion as  an  attack  upon  the  Fourth  Church  ? 

A.  I  do,  sir,  and  I  will  tell  you  why  : 
because  I  feel  that  it  was  the  duty  of  the 
prosecution  to  have  made  some  complaint  to 
the  session  of  the  church,  who  have  charge 
of  its  worship.  That  is  my  feeling  in  the 
matter. 

Q.  Do  you  regard  this  as  an  attack  upon 
the  session  of  that  church? 

A.  I  do,  in  that  the  session  have  charge 
of  the  worship,  and  I  think  the  prosecutor 
ought  to  have  come  to  the  session  before  he 
made  any  complaint  against  any  one  mem- 
ber of  it. 

Q.  Then  you  feel  personally  aggrieved,  I 
take  it. 

A.  I  do,  because  I  think  that  it  is  a  re- 
flection that  the  session  should  permit  here- 
sy to  be  preached. 

Q.  I  am  sorry  Mr.  King  has  these  views 
of  the  prosecution. 

A.  I  think  it  was  a  mistake.  I  do  not 
think  the  prosecution  was  willful  in  that  re- 
spect, but  I  think  that  it  was  a  mistake  that 
the  prosecutor  did  not  direct  the  attention 
of  the  session  to  what  the  prosecution  might 
have  thought  was  wrong. 

Rev.  Dr.  Beechcr. — Has  Mr.  Swing  taught 
that  men  are  such  sinners,  and  so  lost,  that 
without  the  atonement  they  cannot  be 
saved  ? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q,  Has  he  taught  that  Christ  has  made 
atonement  by  His  death  ? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  has  he  taught  that  men  need  ab- 
solutely regeneration  by  the  influence  of  the 
holy  spirit? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Has  he  taught  that  men  are  justified 
only  by  faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  ? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 


58 


THE  TKIAL  OF  EEV.  DAVID  SWING. 


Elder  Barber. — I  would  like  to  inquire 
whether  Mr.  Swing  has  omitted  to  preach  or 
teach  the  doctrine  that  Jesus  is  equal  with 
God,  and  is  God  manifested  in  the  flesh. 

A.     He  has  preached  it  repeatedly,  sir. 

Q.  Has  he  omitted  to  preach  or  teach  the 
doctrine  that  all  scripture  is  given  by  inspi- 
ration by  God  ? 

A.     He  has  preached  that,  sir. 

Q.     Oftentimes? 

A.     Oftentimes. 

Q.     At  what  dates  ? 

A.     1  could  not  give  the  dates,  sir. 

Prof.  Patton. — Are  the  sermons  in  exist- 
ence, Mr.  counsel,  in  which  these  doctrines 
are  taught  ? 

Rev.  Mr.  Noyes. — I  am  unable  to  state, 
sir.  The  defendant  is  not  present  in  the 
house. 

Elder  Lee. — In  answer  to  one  of  the  first 
questions  put  to  you  you  say  it  is  your  opin- 
ion that  Professor  Swing  preached  evangel- 
ical doctrines  ;  don't  you  also  fully  believe 
that  he  did  thus  preach  them  ? 

A.  I  do,  sir.  My  opinion  was  all  that 
was  asked. 

Q.  I  want  to  know  if  it  is  simply  a  mat- 
ter of  opinion  or  a  firm  belief? 

A.     It  is  a  firm,  deep  belief,  sir. 

Prof  Patton. — But  you  admitted  that  you 
might  be  mistaken. 

A.     I  said  it  was  human  to  err. 

Q.  "Was  I  right  in  regarding  that  as 
equivalent  to  saying  you  might  be  mistaken? 

A.  Oh,  certainly  ;  I  might  be  mistaken 
Jn  regard  to  anything. 

Q.  And  you  might  be  mistaken  in  regard 
<o  this  ? 

A.     Certainly  ;  all  things  are  possible. 

Q.  You  stated,  in  answer  to  Elder  Bar- 
ber's question,  that  Professor  Swing  has  not 
omitted  to  preach  certain  doctrines.  Can 
you  specify  the  sermons  in  which  he  preach- 
ed them  ? 

A.     No,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  seen  a  sermon  entitled, 
"Old  Testament  inspiration,''  which  is  in 
print  ? 

A.  I  don't  know  whether  I  have  or  not. 
I  couldn't  state  whether  I  have  or  not. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  hearing  that  ser- 
mon? 

A.  I  do  not.  I  would  say  that  I  have 
been  absent  sometimes  from  the  city,  and 
have  this  spring  been  absent  quite  a  length 


of  time.  I  may  and  I  may  not  have  heard 
it.     I  do  not  remember. 

Rev.  Dr.  Patterson. — I  would  ask  you  if  you 
have  ever  heard  anything  from  Mr.  Swing 
in  the  pulpit,  or  in  the  lecture  room,  that 
seemed  in  the  slightest  manner  to  imply  that 
he  did  not  receive  the  ordinarily  accepted 
evangelical  doctrine  ? 

A.  No,  sir,  I  never  have.  I  never  have 
in  the  slightest  degree. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  heard  anything  from 
him  that  seemed  to  imply  that  he  did  not  use 
the  language,  "The  Saviour  and  atonement 
and  divinity  of  Christ,"  in  the  accepted 
evangelical  sense  ? 

A.     No,  sir. 

Elder  Barber. — Reference  has  been  made 
to  a  paper  subscribed  by  the  session  of  the 
Fourth  Church,  and  published.  Do  you 
now  remember  the  statements  of  that  paper? 

A.    Well,  substantially,  perhaps. 

Q.     Are  those  statements  true  ? 

A.  I  think  they  are,  sir,  substantially 
true. 

Rev.  Dr.  Swazey. — I  would  like  to  ask  Mr. 
King,  has  Professor  Swing,  in  any  of  his 
sermons,  used  language  derogatory  to  the 
standards  of  the  Presbyterian  Church? 

A.  I  can't  say  that  he  has,  sir.  I  don't 
recall  any  such  language. 

Q.  Has  he  ridiculed  the  doctrines  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  ? 

A.     No,  sir;  not  in  my  hearing. 

Prof.  Patton. — You  testified,  in  answer  to 
Mr.  Barber's  question,  something  in  rela- 
tion to  a  paper,  and  you  say  those  statements 
are  true.  That  paper  states,  I  think,  some- 
thing in  reference  to  the  membership  of  the 
church,  does  it  not? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Doesn't  it  say  something  about  a  large 
increase  to  the  church  ? 

A.     I  think  it  does  ;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  Would  you  have  the  kindness  to  tell 
us  how  large  the  increase  of  the  member- 
ship of  the  Fourth  Church  has  been  since 
the  fire  ? 

A.  I  couldn't  state  that.  It  is  a  matter 
of  record.  I  would  only  state  that  we  have 
had  but  one  communion  since  the  fire,  and 
that  we  have  had  additions  to  the  church 
either  by  profession  or  letter,  or  both. 

Q.    How  many  additions  do  you  think  ? 

Rev.  Dr.  Patterson. — I  rise  to  a  point  of 
order.  I  know  nothing  of  what  the  answer 
would  be  to  this  question,  but  I  submit  that  it 


TESTIMONY  OF  WITNESSES. 


is  not  in  order  to  examine  a  witness  in  re- 
gard to  the  results  of  ministerial  labor,  espe- 
cially under  such  circumstances.  If  any  of 
the  ministers  of  this  church  or  Presbytery 
should  be  examined  in  regard  to  the  results 
of  past  labor,  I  think  we  would  come  out 
badly. 

Prof.  Patton. — The  only  reason  I  put  the 
question  was  that  certain  statements  are  made 
in  the  paper — 

Rev.  Mr.  Noyes.  —That  paper  is  not  in  evi- 
dence, yet. 

Bev.  Mr.  Faris. — Brother  Barber  asked 
the  party  if  the  statements  in  the  paper  were 
true,  and  that  made  it  evidence.  I  am  a  ju- 
ror, certainly,  and  must  be  governed  by  that. 

Rev.  Dr.  Patterson. — That  does  not  make 
the  paper  in  evidence. 

Prof.  Patton. — I  will  not  press  the  ques- 
tion. 

Rev.  Mr.  Brobston. — (To  the  witness.)  You 
have  stated  that  you  heard  Mr.  Swing 
preach  the  evangelical  doctrines.  Do  you 
include  in  that  term  the  doctrines  included 
in  the  Confession  of  Faith  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  all  the  leading  evangelical 
doctrines  contained  in  the  Confession  of 
Faith. 

Rev.  Dr.  Patterson. — I  would  ask  you 
whether  Mr.  Swing  has,  in  his  Wednesday 
evening  lectures,  especially  brought  out  these 
evangelical  doctrines  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  he  has,  with  to  my  mind 
such  force  as  I  have  never  heard  them 
brought  out  elsewhere. 

Elder  Lee. — Did  you  ever  hear  any  doubts 
expressed  in  regard  to  his  soundness  before 
they  were  published  in  the  Interior  ? 

Prof.  Patton. — I  object  to  the  relevancy 
of  the  question,  Mr.  Moderator. 

Rev.  Mr.  Trowbridge. — I  will  ask  a  similar 
question. 

The  Moderator — Does  Mr.  Lee  still  desire 
an  answer  to  the  question  ? 

Elder  Lee. — If  it  is  relevant,  I  do. 

A.  I  don't  know  whether  I  have  ever 
heard  his  opinions  or  his  views  called  in 
question  before  or  not.  I  could  not  say  as  to 
that. 

Rev.  Mr.  Troiobridge. — Did  you  ever  hear 
a  constant  and  regular  hearer  of  Prof.  Swing 
express  doubts  of  his  soundness  ? 

A.  I  don't  think  I  ever  heard  a  man  who 
heard  Prof  Swing  for  any  length  of  time  ex- 
press any  sort  of  doubt  in  regard  to  it. 

Rev.  Mr.  Noyes. — Simply  as   a   matter   of 


information  to  the  prosecutor,  I  would  state 
that  these  questions,  with  reference  to  Prof. 
Swing's  labors  in  his  prayer-meetings  were 
very  pertinent  to  the  fate  of  specification  five, 
where  it  is  said,  "he  omits  to  preach  or  teach 
one  or  more  of  the  doctrines  indicated  in  the 
following  statement:''  There  is  nothing 
said  about  sermons,  but  that  "  he  omits  to 
preach  or  teach." 

Prof.  Ration. — I  do  not  think  that  is  the 
reading  of  the  amended  charge  —  "  he  has 
omitted  to  preach  in  his  sermons.'' 

The  Moderator . — A  few  words  further  on 


Prof.  Patton. — That  is  simply  a  setting  out 
of  the  statement  already  made. 

Rev.  Mr.  Noyes. — No  matter  how  it  is  set 
out. 

Rev.  Mr.  Faris. — I  understood  Mr.  King 
to  say  that  he  knew  no  one  who  had  attend- 
ed upon  Mr.  Swing's  ministry  with  any  reg- 
ularity and  continuousness,  to  be  dissatisfied 
with  his  preaching.  Does  he  or  does  he  not 
know  of  any  of  the  elders — one  or  more — who 
ceased  attending  because  they  were  dissatis- 
fied ? 

A.  No,  sir,  I  do  not,  any  persons  who  at- 
tended for  any  great  length  of  time  with  con- 
tinuousness. 

Testimony  read  and  approved  by  witness. 
(Signed,)  Henry  W.  King. 

The  prosecutor  objected  to  the  introduction 
of  parole  testimony  when  the  sermons  them- 
selves were  in  existence. 

In  accordance  with  previous  notice,  Kev. 
Arthur  Swazey  entered  a  protest  against  the 
action  of  the  Presbytery  in  entertaining  the 
charges  and  specifications,  which  was  admit- 
ted to  record,  and  is  as  follows  : 

The  undersigned  members  of  this  Presby- 
tery respectfully  protest  against  the  action 
of  said  Presbytery  in  receiving  the  charges 
and  specifications  preferred  by  Francis  L. 
Patton  against  David  Swing,  said  charges 
being  those  received  at  the  session  of  this 
Presbytery,  held  April  27,  in  the  Second 
Presbyterian  Church,  in  Chicago. 

Because  the  said  charges  and  specifications 
are  seriously  defective  in  form  and  substance ; 
that  is  to  say,  that  the  specifications  under 
charge  first  are  either  vague,  or  frivolous, 
or  extra-constitutional,  or,  where  not  serious- 
ly defective  in  form  or  substance,  do  not  con. 
stitute  an  ofi'ense. 

To  illustrate  :  Specification  first,  regarding 
the  use  of  "equivocal  language,"  is  defec- 
tive, because  it  is  no  specification  in  any 
proper  sense.  It  quotes  no  passages  from  the 
writings  of  Prof.  Swing ;  that  is  to  say,  no 
words  or  phrases    on  which  the  charge  of 


60 


THE  TEIAL  OF  KEY.  DAYID  SWING. 


equivocation  is  based.  Moreover,  if  it  were 
not  defective  in  form,  the  matter  of  the 
charge  would  not  constitute  an  offense. 
Moore's  Digest,  pp.  304,  306,  case  of  Craig- 
head and  case  of  Barnes.  Specification  fifth 
is  too  vague  to  be  admitted.  If,  however,  a 
meaning  be  allowed,  the  matter  charged  does 
not  constitute  an  offense.  No  minister  is  re- 
quired to  preach  doctrinal  sermons,  and  the 
specification  does  not  deny  that  the  evangeli- 
cal doctrines  are  interwoven  in  the  discourses 
of  Prof.  Swing. 

Specification  third,  relating  to  a  lecture 
delivered  in  a  Unitarian  cliapel,  to  the  extra- 
vagant laudation  of  John  Stuart  Mill,  and 
also  to  the  cataloguing  of  Eobert  Patterson 
and  Eobert  Col  Iyer  together,  and  also  to 
local  religion,  and  specification  eleventh,  re- 
lating to  a  comparison  of  the  chances  of  Pen- 
elope and  Socrates,  and  Catherine  II.  at  the 
gate  of  heaven,  are  frivolous,  and  not  within 
the  allowance  of  this  court. 

Specification  sixth,  relating  to  modes  of 
verifying  truth ;  and  specification  seventh, 
relating  to  "Evolution  or  Development," 
and  "  the  low  idolatry  of  primitive  man;" 
and  specification  fourteenth,  relating  to  the 
inward  call  to  the  ministry  ;  and  specification 
fifteenth,  relating  to  "  Old  Testament  sacri- 
fices;" and  specification  sixteenth,  that  "  re- 
ligion is  represented  in  a  form  of  mysticism ; " 
and  others  in  whole  or  in  part,  are  extra- 
constitutional,  and  involve  questions  which 
the  Presbytery  is  not  competent  to  determine. 

The  foregoing  are  not  exhaustive,  but  only 
illustrative. 

The  undersigned  protest  against  charge 
second  :  Because  it  is  irregular.  It  maj  mean 
to  charge  (1)  non-belief  or  unbelief,  or  (2j 
heresy,  or  (3)  inconsistency,  or  (4)  dupjlicity. 
It  is  irregular,  also,  because  evidently  mean- 
ing to  charge  some  fault  or  deficiency ;  it 
charges  no  overt  fault,  act,  or  word,  but  in 
form  proposes  to  judge  the  heart.  It  is  com- 
petent for  the  Court  to  determine  upon  a 
word  or  an  act,  as  contrary  to  the  profession 
of  the  same,  but  it  is  not  competent  for  the 
Court  to  determine  whether  a  man  at  heart 
loves  his  church  or  loves  his  creed.'  What 
Prof.  Swing  is  alleged  to  have  said  to  Mr. 
Collyer  and  Mr.  Shufeldt  cannot  be  a  part  of 
the  charge,  but  are  simply  in  evidence  to 
that  which  is  beyond  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
Court,  viz, :  the  mind  of  the  accused  with 
reference  to  the  Confession  of  Faith. 

The  charge  in  the  form  in  which  it  now 
stands  is  not  identical  in  law  or  propriety 
with  a  conceivable  charge,  viz. :  that  Prof. 
David  Swing,  having  declared  and  professed 
his  belief  in  the  Confession  of  Faith  as  con- 
taining the  system  of  doctrine  taught  in 
Holy  Scripture,  has  spoken  publicly  and  pri- 
vately in  a  manner  seriously  inconsistent 
with  such  a  declaration  and  profession. 

The  undersigned  protest  that,  while  it  is 
proper  to  allow  a  wide  scope  to  a  prosecu- 
tion, and,  while  a  long  array  of  irregular 
and  frivolous  charges  offer  moral  advantages 
to  the  accused,  the  cause  of  justice  and  the 
dignity  of  the  Presbytery  are  compromised 


by  going  to  trial  on  the  before-named  indict- 
ment. 

(Signed.) 

Arthur  Swazey,  M.  M.  Wakeman, 

J.  T.  Matthews,  Glen  Wood, 

S.  B.  Williams,  Jacob  Post, 

E.  L.  HuRD,  E.  H.  Curtis, 

E.  N.  Barrett,  J.  H.  Walker, 

E.  E.  Davis,  A.  H.  Merrill. 

Horace  A.  Hurlbut,  Esq.,  was  sworn,  and 
testified  as  follows : 

direct  examination  by  rev.  MR.  NOTES. 

Q.  Are  you  an  elder  in  the  Fourth  Pres- 
byterian church  ? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Were  you  an  elder  in  the  North  or 
Westminster  church  previous  to  the  union 
of  those  churches  ? 

A.     I  was,  in  the  North  church. 

Q.  You  were  an  elder  in  the  North  church 
when  the  question  of  the  union  of  those  two 
churches  was  brought  up  for  consideration  ? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.  In  considering  this  question,  was  there 
any  testimony  given  as  to  the  orthodoxy  of 
Prof.  Swing  ? 

A.  There  was,  in  the  session  of  the  church. 
There  was  a  consultation  in  the  session. 

Q.  By  whom  was  that  testimony  or  assur- 
ance given? 

A.  We  consulted  our  pastor  at  that  time, 
who'  was  the  pastor  of  the  North  church,  Mr, 
Marquis. 

Q,  Of  what  character  was  his  testimony 
upon  this  point,  given  to  the  session? 

A.  The  character  of  his  testimony  as  to 
Mr.  Swing's  soundness  ? 

Q.     Yes. 

A.  It  was  that  he  considered  him  sound. 
I  don't  know  any  other  way  to  express  it. 
There  was  no  question  of  his  fitness. 

Q.  Have  you  listened  to  the  preaching  or 
teaching  of  Mr.  Swing  since  the  Fourth 
church  was  organized  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  not  steadily,  but  a  good  deal 
of  the  time. 

Q.  Has  he  preached  and  taught  the  doc- 
trines commonly  called  evangelical  ? 

A.     In  my  opinion,  he  has. 

Q.  Has  he  been  faithful  and  diligent  in 
the  exercise  of  the  public  duties  of  his  min- 
istry ? 

A.     In  my  opinion,  he  has. 

Q.  Do  you  know  anything  about  a  paper 
signed  by,  or  purporting  to  come  from,  the 
session  of  the  Fourth  church  to  which  their 


TESTIMONY  OF  WITNESSES. 


61 


signatures — the  elders'  signatures — are  at- 
taclied  ? 

A.     I  know  of  such  a  paper. 

Q.     Did  you  sign  it  ? 

A.  I  did  not  with  my  hand,  but  I  did  it 
by  my  instructions. 

Q.  You  authorized  your  name  to  be 
signed  ? 

A.    Yes,  sir  ;  I  authorized  it  to  be  signed. 

CROSS-EXAMINATION  BY   PROF.  PATTON. 

Q.  I  understood  you  to  say  that  you  re- 
member that  Mr.  Marquis  said  that  he,  Mr. 
Marquis,  thought  that  Mr.  Swing  was  sound. 

A.     That  he  considered  him  sound. 

Q.  It  is  a  matter  of  memory  with  you  as 
to  what  Mr.  Marquis  said  ? 

A.  It  certainly  must  be.  It  can  be  noth- 
ing else. 

Q.  It  was  a  matter  of  opinion  with  Mr. 
Marquis  as  to  what  Mr.  Swing's  views  were  ? 

A.  I  presume  so.  I  don't  know  anything 
about  Mr.  Marquis'  opinion. 

Pi-of  Patton. — I  object  to  that  portion  of 
the  examination  that  refers  to  Mr.  Marquis' 
opinion,  and  to  Mr.  Hurlbut's  opinion,  and 
I  move  that  it  be  stricken  out. 

Mr.  Riddle. — The  objection  is  not  in  time. 
He  should  have  objected  to  the  questions 
themselves,  seriatim. 

The  Moderator. — Prof.  Patton's  dissent  to 
their  reception  by  the  Presbytery  can  be  re- 
corded. 

Prof.  Patton. — I  shall  not  press  the  ques- 
tion. 

Rev.  Mr.  Davis. — Do  you  wish  your  dissent 
recorded  ? 

Prof  Patton. — No,  sir. 

Rev.  Dr.  Swazey — How  long  have  you  been 
in  the  Presbyterian  church  ? 

A.     As  a  member  of  the  church? 

Q.     Yes  ;  as  a  member  of  the  church. 

A.     Twelve  or  fifteen  years. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  an  officer  in 
the  church  ? 

A.  I  can't  remember  the  dates — about 
eight  years  I  should  say. 

Q.  To  which  branch  of  the  church  did 
you  belong ;  I  mean  referring  to  the  time 
previous  to  the  union  ? 

A.  To  the  Old  School  Presbyterian 
Church. 

Q.  Have  you  in  former  times  taken  con- 
siderable interest  in  what  is  called  the  doc- 
trinal position  of  the  Presbyterian  church  ? 

A.     Well,  not  a  large  interest  in  it. 

Q.     Do  you  think  enough,  sir,  to  qualify 


you  to  be  a  pretty  good  judge  of  the  sound- 
ness of  a  man  as  to  his  theology  as  deter- 
mined by  the  Confession  of  Faith  ? 

A.     I  hope  so. 

Elder  Barber. — Do  you  know  anything  of 
the  length  of  acquaintance  of  your  former 
pastor,  Marquis,  with  Mr.  Swing,  prior  to 
the  time  of  that  consultation  you  refer  to? 

A.  His  acquaintance,  to  my  knowledge, 
was  during  the  time  that  they  were  pastors 
of  their  respective  churches,  on  the  North 
side  of  the  river. 

Q.     How  long  a  period  of  time  was  that  ? 

A.  A  few  years;  I  couldn't  say  exactly, 
sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  anything  of  that  ac- 
quaintance or  the  point  of  intimacy  ? 

A.     I  never  saw  them  together. 

Prof  Patton. — Mr.  Moderator,  it  certainly 
must  strike  the  Court  that  Mr.  Marquis' 
opinion  about  Mr.  Swing's  soundness  cannot 
be  a  matter  of  evidence  under  any  circum- 
stances, and  still  less  under  such  circumstan- 
ces as  these.  Mr.  Hurlbut  has  testified  as  to 
Mr.  Swing's  soundness,  by  bringing  in  Mr. 
Marquis'  opinion  about  it.  I  move  that  that 
be  stricken  out.     I  object  to  the  question. 

Elder  Barber. — My  object  is  to  show  the 
value  of  the  opinion  expressed  by  the  Rev. 
Mr.  Marquis.  If  the  witness  knows  any- 
thing of  their  intimacy  or  intercourse,  I 
think  it  will  have  a  bearing,  and  if  he  does 
not,  it  will  not. 

Rev.  Mr.  Faris. — Don't  Judge  Barber 
know  that  hearsay  testimony  is  not  admissi- 
ble? 

Elder  Barber. — I  asked  him  as  to  his 
knowledge  of  that  intimacy.  He  is  capable 
of  answering  if  he  does  or  does  not  know  it. 

The  Moderator. — Mr.  Hurlbut's  testimony 
upon  that  point  has  been  given  and  was  not 
objected  to  when  given,  and  Mr.  Barber's 
question  is  directed  to  the  value  of  the  state- 
ment of  his  opinion. 

Elder  Barber. — Do  you  know  of  that  in- 
timacy of  your  own  knowledge? 

A.  I  know  of  the  intimacy  in  this  way  : 
The  churches  were  then  talking  of  being 
united,  and  for  a  time  they  might  need  both 
pastors  over  the  united  churches. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  any  doubts  expressed  by 
Mr.  Marquis  as  to  the  theological  soundness 
of  Mr.  Swing? 

A.     Never. 

Prof  Patton. — You  said  you  were  able  to 


62 


THE  TRIAL  OF  REV.  DAVID  SWING. 


judge  of  the  soundness  of  the  Presbyterian 
church  ? 

A.  I  beg  your  pardon  ;  I  said  I  hoped  I 
was. 

Q.  Well,  I  hope  so  too.  Will  you  be 
kind  enough  to  tell  us  what  the  Presbyterian 
church  believes  as  to  the  person  of  Christ; 
who  Christ  was,  and  what  He  is  ? 

A.    I  can  tell  you  what  I  believe,  sir. 

Q.     Well,  please  tell  me  what  you  believe. 

A.     I  believe  that  Christ  is  God. 

Q.     Does  that  sum  up  your  belief  ? 

A.  I  think  it  covers  it  in  its  broadest 
sense. 

Q.     It  covers  all  you  know  about  Christ  ? 

A.     No,  sir. 

Q.     What  else  do  you  know  about  Him  ? 

A.     Do  you  mean  by  personal  experience  ? 

Q.     No  ;  simply  as  a  theological  fact. 

Rev.  Mr.  GLeri.  Wood. — It  would  take  a  man 
all  day  to  tell  us  what  he  knows  about  Christ, 
and  not  tell  it  all  then.  I  don't  think  the 
prosecutor  could  tell  us  in  a  week. 

The  Moderator  ^ — The  question  is  admissible. 

Prof  Patton. — You  say  you  believe  Christ  is 
God,  and  you  say  that  covers  your  belief  ? 

A.  In  the  broadest  sense.  I  believe 
Christ  is  equal  with  God.  I  believe  he  died 
to  save  sinners,  and  through  Him,  and  Him 
alone 

Q.     That  is  suiBcient  on  that  point. 

A.  I  was  trying  to  get  at  what  you  want- 
ed me  to  state.  I  will  say  as  much  more  as 
you  desire. 

Q.  Then,  as  I  understand  it,  Christ  came 
into  this  world  and  was  just  God  in  the 
world  ? 

A.     I  didn't  say  so. 

Q.     Was  he  anything  else  than  God  ? 

A.  He  was  God  manifested  in  the  flesh  ; 
not  only  God  but  the  Saviour. 

Q.  What  do  you  mean  by  manifested  in 
the  fiesh  ? 

A.  Well,  those  particular  points.  I  would 
liave  to  refer  you  to  our  Catechism  to  give 
you  a  correct  answer. 

(l.  Will  you  be  good  enough  to  state  what 
our  catechism  does  state  on  that  subject? 

A.  My  memory  is  not  exact.  If  you  will 
iiUow  me  to  get  the  catechism,  I  will  read 
from  it,  and  submit  it  as  my  belief,  sir. 

Q.    You  say  that  your  memory  is  not  exact  ? 

A.     On  what  point  ? 

Q.  You  have  stated  that  as  a  proposition  in 
general  terms. 

A.     My  memory  is  not  exact. 


Q.  You  have  stated  that  Mr.  Swing  has 
preached  sound  evangelical  doctrine  ? 

A.     In  my  opinion,  he  has. 

Q.  What  is  your  view  of  the  teachings  of 
the  church,  as  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity, 
Mr.  Hurlbut  ?  What  does  the  Presbyterian 
church  believe  on  the  subject  of  the  Trinity  ? 

A.  That  there  are  three  persons  in  one 
God,  equal  in  power  and  glory. 

Q.     That  is  very  nearly  correct. 

A.  I  would  not  expect  to  state  it  exactly. 
It  is  some  time  since  I  have  repeated  them. 

Q.  Then  you  say  that  the  belief  that 
Christ  is  God  covers  your  idea  of  Christ  ? 

A.  I  did  not  say  so.  I  said  in  its  broad- 
est sense. 

Q.  So,  if  you  should  hear  a  man  who 
would  say  that  Christ  was  God,  you  would 
consider  that  he  held  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
Presbyterian  church  on  this  subject? 

A.     I  didn't  say  so. 

The  Moderator. — I  do  not  think  the  wit- 
ness understands,  Prof.  Patton,  that  you  refer 
particularly  to  the  person  of  Christ.  Isn't 
that  so  ? 

Prof.  Patton. — Yes,  sir.  I  am  referring  to 
the  person  of  Christ,  but  I  pass  from  that 
question.  I  don't  think  I  have  any  further 
questions  to  ask. 

Rev.  Mr.  Noyes. — State  whether  you  know 
that  Mr.  Marquis  and  Mr.  Swing  exchanged 
pulpits  before  the  union  of  the  two  churches. 

A.  r  can't  say  definitely,  but  my  impres- 
sion is  that  they  did.  I  know  we  united  in  our 
other  service. 

Prof.  Patton. — How  long  have  you  heard 
Mr.  Swing  ? 

A.  I  have  heard  him  since  the  union  of 
the  churches. 

Q.  Since  the  union  of  the  Westminster 
and  the  North  churches  ? 

A.     A  part  of  the  time. 

Q.  Have  you  been  a  regular  hearer  of  Mr. 
Swing  during  that  time  ? 

A.  I  have  not  been  a  constant  hearer  until 
we  went  into  our  new  church. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  in  your  new 
church  ? 

A.  We  moved  last  winter — the  iirst  of 
January,  about. 

Q.  Previous  to  that  time  I  understand 
you  to  say,  you  did  not  hear  him  regularly  ? 

A.     Not  every  Sunday. 

Q.  You  were  a  member  of  the  Fourth 
church,  were  you  not? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 


TESTIMONY  OF  WITNESSES. 


68 


Q.  Did  you  leave  the  Fourth  church  to  go 
elsewhere  ? 

A.     To  go  elsewhere  ? 

Q.     Yes. 

A.     Leave  the  church  ?  No,  sir. 

Q.  Then  I  understand  you  to  say  you  did 
not  wait  regularly  upon  Mr.  Swing's  minis- 
trations ? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  I  will  explain  that,  sir,  by 
saying  a  good  deal  of  the  time  I  was  out  of 
the  city. 

Q.  "Was  the  reason  for  your  not  attend- 
ing, the  fact  that  you  were  out  of  the  city  ? 

A.  That  was  the  reason,  when  I  was  out 
of  the  city. 

Rev.  W.  F.  Wood. — As  for  the  reason  for 
changing,  it  was  not  in  the  sense  of  with- 
drawing his  letter  and  taking  it  to  another 
church,  but  simply  changing  because  he  was 
out  of  the  city  ? 

A.    I  did  not  change  it  permanently. 

Q.  Did  you  change  it  for  any  length  of 
time  from  listening  to  Prof.  Swing's  preach- 
ing, to  some  other  minister's  preaching? 

A.     I  desired  to  hear  some  one  else  preach. 

Q.  You  do  not  mean  changing  on  one 
Sabbath,  as  any  of  us  would  ? 

A.  That  is  about  all  the  change  there 
was. 

Q.  There  was  no  change  for  any  length 
of  time  ? 

A.     No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  absent  yourself  from  Prof. 
Swing's  preaching  because  you  did  not  think 
you  got  the  gospel  there  ? 

A.     No,  sir. 

Rev.  Dr.  Hurd. — Was  it  because  you  lived 
a  great  distance  from  the  church  ? 

A.  That  was  one  reason,  and  another 
reason  was  :  Standard  hall  was  an  inconven- 
ient place  to  go  to, — an  inconvenient  room — 
and  another  was,  that  I  desired  to  hear  other 
preachers  while  I  was  living  in  this  section 
of  the  city. 

Prof.  Pation. — State  whether  you  regard 
this  prosecution  as  an  attack  upon  the  Fourth 
church  ? 

A.  Well,  I  do,  as  one  of  the  bodies  attack- 
ed, not  alone  the  Fourth  church. 

Q.  Do  you  regard  it  as  an  attack  upon  the 
elders  of  the  Fourth  church? 

A.    I  do,  as  one  of  the  elders. 

Q.    Do  you  regard  it  as  a  personal  attack? 

A.    Upon  me? 

Q.     Yes. 

A.     No,  sir. 


Q.  I  mean  upon  you  in  your  relation  as 
an  elder? 

A.     No,  sir. 

Q.  Or  upon  the  eldership — upon  the  ses- 
sion? 

A.     Upon  the  church. 

Q.     Upon  the  session  ? 

A.  I  suppose  the  session  would  be  consid- 
ered the  officers  of  the  church,  and  an  attack 
upon  the  church  would  be  an  attack  upon 
the  officers  in  their  official  capacity. 

Q.  Eegarding  this  prosecution  in  the  light 
of  an  attack  upon  the  church  ;  you  are  very 
anxious,  therefore,  as  to  the  result  of  the 
prosecution,  are  you  not  ? 

A.  No,  sir,  I  have  not  the  slightest 
anxiety  about  it. 

Q.  That  is  using  the  word  anxiety  in  a 
state  of  doubt.  You  have  your  preference  as 
to  the  way  it  should  terminate  ? 

A.  I  should  prefer  that  it  terminated  here 
with  the  Presbytery. 

Q.  You  would  not  call  yourself  a  disin- 
terested party  in  this  case  ? 

A.     Not  at  all. 

Rev.  Mr.  Garden. — What  churches  did  you 
attend  in  this  part  of  the  city  ? 

A.  Mr.  Mitchell's  church  and  Dr.  Patter- 
son's church. 

Q.  In  your  opinion,  do  you  think  Prof. 
Swing  brought  out  the  nature  of  Christ  and 
the  office  of  Christ  as  fully  as  did  those 
ministers  whose  sermons  you  attended? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Rev.  Dr.  Patterson. — I  submit  that  it  is  not 
a  proper  question. 

The  Moderator. — The  witness  might  decline 
to  answer  such  a  question  as  that. 

Rev.  Mr.  Brobston. — Did  you  ever  hear 
Mr.  Swing  preach  anything  in  relation  to 
the  eternal  destruction  of  infants  in  hell  ? 

A.     No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  ever  say  that  that  doctrine  was 
found  in  the  Confession  of  Faith  of  the  Pres- 
byterian Church? 

A.     I  never  heard  him  say  so. 

Q.  It  is  charged  upon  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  and  if  so,  I  never  saw  such  a  doc- 
trine stated  there.     It  is  a  slander. 

The  Moderator. — Please  confine  yourself  to 
questions.  Brother  Brobston.  Are  there  any 
further  questions  ? 

Rev.  Dr.  Patterson. — I  would  ask  you, 
Mr.  Hurlbut,  if  you  feel  you  have  any  per- 
sonal interest  in  the  result  of  this  trial  any 
further   than  as  you  are  connected  with  the 


64 


THE  TRIAL  OF  REV.  DAVID  SWING. 


church  of  which  you  are  an  officer,  and  the 
Presbyterian  Church  of  the  United  States  ? 

A      No  other,  sir. 

Rev.  Mr.  Noyes. — Do  you  mean  as  though 
it  could  be  due  to  any  prejudice,  that  you 
could  regard  this  prosecution  as  an  attack 
upon  the  Presbyterian  Church  ? 

A.     Not  any. 

Rev.  Mr.  Walker. — You  accept  the  state- 
ment in  reference  to  Christ  as  made  in  the 
Catechism,  do  you  ? 

A.     Tes,  sir. 

Rev.  Dr.  Patterson. — You  believe  that 
Christ  is  truly  man  as  well  as  truly  God  ? 

A.     Tes,  sir. 

Prof.  Patton. — What  did  you  mean  by 
saying  that  Christ  was  truly  man  ? 

A.  I  meant  just  what  I  said.  I  can  give 
no  plainer  definition  than  that. 

Q.  I  think  you  could.  What  do  you 
mean  by  saying  Christ  was  a  man  ? 

A.  I  mean  that  he  took  upon  himself  the 
form  of  man,  subject  to  temptations,  but 
without  sin. 

Q.  Do  I  understand  you  to  say  that  you 
cannot  express  that  any  more  di.siinctly  ? 

A.  I  can  with  this  book,  sir.  [Referring 
to  a  Catechism.] 

Q.     Well,  with  the  book,  then. 

A.  The  Catechism — I  refer  to  that,  to  the 
exact  words. 

Q.     As  expressing  your  sentiments  ? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Testimony  I'ead,  and  approved  by  witness. 


(Signed,) 


Horace  A.  Hurlbut, 


The  counsel  for  the  accused  was  permitted 
to  introduce  as  evidence,  the  following  letter 
from  Professor  Swing  to  the  Rev.  D.  X. 
Junkin,  D.  D.  : 

Chicago,  Feb.  2,  1874. 
D.  X.  Junkin,  D.  D. 

Dear  Friend: — A  great  many  duties  will 
prevent  me  from  writing  to  you  a  long  letter, 
but  the  state  of  the  case  is  such  as  not  to  re- 
quire any  very  lengthy  article  from  my  side 
of  the  house.  Your  reason  for  addressing  a 
series  of  letters  to  me  is  not  well  founded 
when  you  base  it  upon  any  association  you 
may  once  have  sustained  to  my  people,  for 
of  the  2,000  persons  who  attended  our  sanct- 
uary in  the  past  two  years,  not  ten  persons 
of  the  multitude  ever  sat  under  your  valua- 
ble preaching  in  your  good  by-gone  days. 
The  general  desire,  upon  your  part,  that 
truth  should  always  have  a  wise  and  zeal- 
ous defender,  is  all  the  reason  you  need  wait 
for,  before  embarking  upon  this  ground, 
your  letters  are  proper  enough.     The  ques- 


tion bej'ond  that  turns  upon  the  kindness  of 
The  Presbyterian.  Let  me  briefly  call  your 
attention  to  the  business  in  hand. 

1.  "Your  plan  of  an  eclectic  rule  of  faith, 
to  be  culled  from  the  bible  by  human  taste 
and  ciiticism,  is  not  original  with  you."  I 
should  think  not,  for  I  never  held  to  any 
such  rule,  nor  ever  breathed  a  word  in  favor 
of  it  anywhere. 

2.  "Your  theory  goes,  as  I  hope  to  prove, 
much  further  than  you  desire."  I  do  not 
desire  it  to  go  at  all.  These  being  j-our  only 
points  in  the  first  letter,  let  us,  hand  in 
hand,  walk  over  to  your  second  article  upon 
an  Eclectic  Rule  of  Faith. 

"Your  objection  to  stoning  a ,  man  to 
death."  We  had  no  objection.  We  said 
that  was  the  inspired  law  of  one  age  and  na- 
tion only,  and  hence  God  must  have  reveal- 
ed a  temporary  morality  in  that  law,  while 
the  real  grace  and  truth  for  all  ages  came 
through  Jesus  Christ.  Inasmuch  as  your 
second  letter  is  founded  upi  n  this  one  idea, 
that  I  objected  to  Mosaic  cruelty,  and  inas- 
much as  my  })oint  was  that  the  inspired  sev- 
entj'  of  the  Mosaic  age  was  not  designed  as 
an  unfolding  of  the  world's  perpetual  Christ- 
ian method,  I  must  dismiss  your  second  let- 
ter, as  containing  no  application  whatever  to 
any  views  ever  taught  or  entertained  bj'  my- 
self. Let  us,  good  doctor,  advance  now  to 
your  third  discourse. 

3.  "And  now  for  a  few  of  the  parts  of  the 
Old  Testament  which  you  say  cannot  be  in- 
spired.'' AVe  never  in  any  waj'  intimated 
that  any  part  of  the  Old  Testament  was  not 
inspired. 

4.  "  You  assume  that  in  no  circumstances 
could  Jehovah  enact  the  lex  talionis."  Never 
assumed  anything  of  the  kind,  but  on  the 
contrary,  showed  that  God  did  give  such  a 
law,  and  that  Christ  just  as  divinely  rejiealed 
it.,  and  that  such  repeal  reached  the  109th 
Psalm. 

I  perceive,  doctor,  that  I  have  quoted  from 
the  third  letter  assertions  which  I  have  as- 
signed to  the  second,  but  this  is^  not  impor- 
tant, for  the  chief  purpose  of  this  is  not  to 
pick  out  the  formal  propositions  of  your 
rather  full  discourse. 

5.  "Your  taste  is  shocked  at  some  of  the 
historical  statements  of  the  Old  Testament. 
You  think  such  narratives  cannot  be  inspir- 
ed and  ought  not  to  be  in  the  book."  All 
which  charge  is  false,  in  every  word  and  im- 
port. I  never  said  anything  of  the  kind,  or 
revealed  any  such  taste  at  any  time  or  place. 
Not,  my  dear,  venerable  father,  that  you 
would  tell  a  falsehood,  but  that  the  charge  is 
false  in  every  particular. 

6.  "You  may  ask,  cui  bono?  of  what  use 
is  such  a  record?"  Having  come  to  middle 
life  without  having  raised  this  question,  and 
not  feeling  the  dawn  in  my  soul  of  any  such 
intention,  let  us  pass  to  other  matters  as 
found  in  your  grand  fourth  letter.  But  here 
we  read  only  a  general  application  of  your 
previous  propositions,  and  the  propositions 
being  all  elaborated  from  your  consciousness, 


PROF.  SWINGS  LETTER  TO  DR.  JUNKIN. 


65 


like  the  German  transcendental  history  of  the 
camel,  the  application  applies  no  more  to  mo 
than  to  any  other  member  of  the  great 
Amorican  republic. 

7.  "  "VVhy,  then,  do  you  blanm  God  for  do- 
ing through  the  instrumentality  of  Moses." 
This  is  ea.sily  answered.  I  never  did  so  blame 
God,  anywhere,  any  time. 

8.  "  Of  course  your  line  of  reasoning  will 
force  you  to  condemn  God.''  "We  have  no 
such  line  of  reasoning  as  has  been  hinted  at 
in  your  letters,  and  hence  we  will  never 
reach  the  conclusions  you  so  confidently  pre- 
dict. 

For  the  sake  of  the  readers  of  The  Presby- 
terian, before  whom  you  have  spread  out  the 
most  wonderful  piece  of  religious  literature 
which  it  has  ever  been  my  pleasure  to  read, 
I  shall  state  here  briefly,  but  carefully,  the 
views  which  I  hold  regarding  the  moral 
quality  of  parts  regarding  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. There  is  nothing  new  in  the  views. 
My  public  relation  to  them  results  from 
the  accident  that  I  was  invited  to  preach 
upon  the  moral  status  of  the  Old  Testa- 
m.ent.  When  God  authorized  the  Israel- 
ites to  wage  exterminating  wars,  He  was  not 
announcing  a  perpetual  law  of  human  con- 
duct, but  was  authorizing  an  act  rather  than 
a' law.  When  the  old  divorce  law  was  passed 
it  did  not  embodj'  an  eternal  principle. 
Neither  did  the  law  that  stoned  to  death  a 
rebellious  son,  and  that  demanded  eye  for 
eye,  and  tooth  for  tooth.  If  the  extermin- 
ating wars  were  ordered  for  an  age  only,  and 
if  the  principle  is  not  perpetuated  in  the 
Christian  era,  then  God  must  have  arrested 
it,  because  it  was  not  an  eternal  law  of  right. 
These  temporary,  defective  principles,  good 
for  a  time  only,  were  designated  inspired  de- 
pravity, to  distinguish  them  from  the  wicked 
acts  of  men  not  acting  under  command  of 
God.  The  personal  sins  of  the  patriarchs 
were  ordinary  depravity,  and  presented  no 
enigma  to  the  sceptical,  but  the  moral  quality 
of  the  old  divorce  law,  etc.,  inasmuch  as 
God  was  their  author,  could  not  have  been 
superseded  by  Christ  on  the  ground  of  their 
being  a  human  weakness.  We  were,  there- 
fore, driven  to  the  conclusion  that  a  defective 
moral  principle  could  have  been  given  by  in- 
spiration. Such  laws  could  do  a  good  work 
for  a  time,  and  then  could  be  repealed  by  the 
God  in  the  New  Testament,  who  had  set 
them  up  in  the  old.  Jesus  Christ,  therefore, 
and  His  Testament,  are  the  revelation  of  the 
everlasting  true  and  right.  His  divorce  law 
repeals  the  old  writing  of  divorcement,  His 
persuading  by  preaching  supersedes  the  ex- 
terminating wars,  His  "praying  for  ene- 
mies" supersedes  the  psalms,  in  which  the 
Hebrews  cursed  their  enemies.  Rationalism 
is  founded  upon  reason,  but  this  theory  is 
founded  upon  the  supernatural  in  Christ,  and 
has  not  one  trace  of  rationalism  in  it.  From 
first  to  last,  it  is  purely  Chrit.tian.  Should 
you,  Dr.  Junkin,  instead  of  drawing  from 
your  creative  fancy,  wish  to  discuss  my 
views,  you  here  have  my  theory,  and  you 
will  always  find  me  "at  home  "  in  it,  ready 


for  your  delightful   chit-chat,  summer   and 
winter,  night  and  day. 

With  kind  wishes,  yours, 
(^Signed.)  David  Swing. 

Mr.  Noyes  here  stated  that,  if  the  prose- 
cutor consented,  be  was  willing  to  submit 
the  case  at  this  stage  to  the  Court  without 
debate.  The  proposition  was  declined  by  the 
prosecutor. 

The  Presbytery  then  adjourned  with  pray- 
er, to  meet  on  Tuesday,  May  12th  inst.,  at  10 
o'clock  A.  M. 


Tuesday,  May  12th,  10  A.  M. 

The  Presbytery  assembled  and  was  opened 
with  prayer. 

Inter  alia: 

The  committee  to  prepare  reasons  for  re- 
fusing the  prosecutor's  request  for  a  contin- 
uance of  the  trial  reported  the  following 
which  was  adopted  : 

The  Presbytery,  having  decided  that  the 
final  request  of  the  prosecutor  for  a  contin- 
uance of  this  case  be  not  granted,  record  as 
the  reasons  for  this  decision  that  it  had  be- 
come apparent, 

1.  That  there  was  no  reasonable  probabil- 
ity that  the  testimony  of  the  proposed  wit- 
ness, Robert  Laird  Collyer,  could  be  obtained 
in  a  reasonable  length  of  time,  even  if  it 
could  be  obtained  at  all ;  and 

2.  That  the  testimony  in  question,  even  if 
obtained,  and  if  of  the  character  alleged  in 
the  specifications,  could  not  be  considered  in 
any  proper  sense  suificient  to  prove  such  spe- 
cifications. 

(1.)  Because  it  would  be  completely  re- 
butted by  affidavits  already  on  the  records  of 
the  Presbytery. 

(2.)  Because,  according  to  the  Book  of 
Discipline,  chap.  VI,  sec.  6,  it  requires  the 
testimony  of  more  than  one  witness  to  sustain 
a  charge,  and,  in  the  judgment  of  the  Presby- 
tery, there  was  no  other  witness  whose  testi- 
mony went  to  sustain  the  charge  specified  by 
the  prosecutor  to  be  proven  by  said  Collyer, 
and  the  prosecutor  had  submitted  all  his 
available  parole  evidence. 

(3.)  Because  the  Presbytery  had  been  ad- 
vised by  the  prior  statements  of  the  pros- 
ecutor that  he  knew  that  the  said  Collyer 
had  recently  departed  for  Europe — with  the 
intent  of  an  absence  until  next  September — 
before  he  preferred  the  charge  in  this  case. 

(4.)  Because  said  final  motion  for  contin- 
uance was  stated  by  the  prosecutor  to  be 
based  simply  upon  his  said  former  affidavit 
for  continuance  presented  at  a  preceding  ses- 
sion of  this  meeting,  and  supported  by  the 
said  Kentucky  affidavits,  one  of  which  dis- 
credited itself  in  the  judgment  of  the  Pres- 
bytery by  swearing  to  a  statement  made  to 
the  affiant  by  said  Collyer  of  a  pretended  fact 
which  had  been  shown  not  to  exist ;  and  for 
the  further  reason  that  the  prosecutor's  said 


66 


THE  TRIAL  OF  EEV.  DAVID  SWING. 


affidavit  did  not  state  that  he  could  not  prove 
the  charges  which  he  expected  to  prove  by 
»aid  ColWer  by  any  other  witness  than  him. 
(Signed,)  E.  L.  Hurd. 

J.  T.  Matthews. 
E.  E.  Barber. 

The  Committee  to  assign  reasons  why  the 
motions  of  the  prosecutor  to  strike  out  the 
testimony  of  Mr.  H.  F.  Waite  should  not  be 
sustained,  reported  as  follows,  which  was 
adopted. : 

1.  The  judicial  action  of  an  ecclesiastical 
court,  often,  as  in  the  present  case,  pertains 
to  matters  of  religious  opinions,  and  even  to 
the  impressions  made  by  public  services.  It 
is,  therefore,  not  possible  to  confine  the  tes- 
timony on  either  side  strictly  within  the 
technical  rules  of  evidence  that  are  enforced 
in  the  jurisdiction  of  civil  courts.  But 
especially  is  this  true  on  the  part  of  the  ac- 
cused, who  is  permitted  to  produce  any  testi- 
mony that  has  a  direct  or  indirect  bearing 
upon  his  exculpation.  The  j  udicatories  of  our 
church,  so  fiir  as  we  are  aware,  have  always 
in  such  case  aimed  at  substantial  equity 
without  much  regard  to  technicalities,  and 
this  Presbytery,  in  adjudicating  the  present 
question,  has  permitted  the  prosecutor  to 
make  charges  and  to  introduce  '  testimony 
that  would  not  for  a  moment  be  admitted  in 
a  civil  tribunal.  The  charges  and  many  of 
the  specifications  take  a  very  wide  range, 
and  the  rebutting  testimony  could  not  be 
fairly  restricted  except  by  the  limit  already 
indicated,  and  already  accorded  to  the  pro- 
secutor. No  rule  of  our  church  has  been 
produced  to  require  more  than  this. 

2.  No  rules  in  evidence  applicable  in  civil 
courts  which  could  have  any  proper  bearing 
upon  the  procedure  of  this  judicatory,  would 
exclude  any  of  Mr.  Waite's  testimony.  Un- 
der these  rules  the  accused  is  accorded  many 
rights  that  are  not  granted  to  the  prosecutor. 
In  1,  Greenleaf,  Evidence,  sec.  53,  page  64, 
we-  find  the  following  :  "  Evidence  of  lan- 
guage spoken  or  written  by  the  defendant  at 
other  times  is  admissible  under  the  general 
issue,  in  proof  of  the  spirit  and  intention  of 
the  party ;  cases  of  this  sort,  therefore,  in- 
stead of  being  exceptions  to  the  rule,  fall 
strictly  within  it."  See  also  1,  Greenleaf, 
chap.  15,  sec.  295  a.  It  appears  also  from 
Phillips  on  Evidence,  vol.  1,  page  627,  sec. 
747,  note  1,  that  wherever  in  a  writing  on 
record  there  may  occur  a  latent  ambiguity 
•which  may  be  made  clearer  by  parole  evi- 
dence,  it  is  always  admissible.  See  also  1, 
Greenleaf,  chap.  15,  sec.  295  a.  Again  we 
read  1  Greenleaf,  page  02,  sec.  51,  as  follows: 
"  It  is  not  neces.sary  that  the  evidence  should 
bear  directly  upon  the  issue.  It  is  admiss- 
ible, if  it  tend  to  prove  the  issue  or  constitute 
a  link  in  the  chain  of  proof,  although  alone 
it  might  not  justify  a  verdict  in  accordance 
with  it.  Nor  is  it  necessary  that  its  relevancy 
should  appear  at  the  time  when  it  is  ofi'ered." 
This  principle  is  clearly  as  applicable  for  the 
defense  as  for  the  prosecution. 


3.  Now,  thirdly,  the  several  motions  of  the 
prosecution  were  denied  in  the  application  of 
the  foregoing  principles,  as  follows  : 

1.  The  first  motion  was  denied  because 
the  testimony  of  the  defense  was  not  confined 
to  specification  5,  and  if  it  had  been,  evidence 
of  other  language,  spoken  at  other  times, 
was  admissible  on  that  issue,  the  burden  of 
proof  resting  on  the  prosecution,  against 
whose  evidence  any  presumption  might  be 
raised  by  proving  the  previous  evangelical 
character  of  the  respondent's  teachings.  Be- 
sides, the  charges  and  specifications  are  gene- 
ral and  expressly  carry  the  court  liack  to  the 
year  A.  D.  1867,  especially  specifications  2 
and  3,  charge  second. 

2.  The  second  motioTi-  was  denied  because 
written  sermons  are  not  necessarily  the  only 
primary  evidence.  Such  documents  are  not 
in  the  nature  of  written  contracts  duly  exe- 
cuted. They  are  merely  the  speaker's  mem- 
oranda, from  which  he  may  depart  more  or 
less,  in  the  delivery.  Lectures  are  also  pub- 
lic teachings,  and  specification  5  refers  ex- 
pressly to  preaching  or  teaching.  In  this 
case  unwritten  expositions  of  scripture, 
which  are  in  fact  sermons,  offered  the  best 
evidence,  because  Prof.  Swing,  under  the  ex- 
traordinary circumstances  of  the  society 
when  they  had  no  house  of  worship  of  their 
own,  preached  to  very  miscellaneous  congre- 
gations, a  large  portion  of  whom  might  in 
his  judgment  be  specially  benefited  by  gene- 
ral discussions  adapted  to  their  state  of  mind 
as  partial  unbelievers,  and  he  may  therefore 
have  reserved  most  of  his  more  strictly  doc- 
trinal teachings  for  the  benefit  of  his  own 
people  to  his  Wednesday  evening  lectures. 
Besides,  the  entire  impressions  of  regular 
hearers,  are  in  some  respects  better  evidence 
as  to  the  evangelical  character  even  of  writ- 
ten sermons  than  the  sermons  themselves 
would  be,  if  read  before  this  body  in  a  criti- 
cal spirit  and  under  the  charge  of  radical 
defect  or  error.  Moreover,  it  would  be  im- 
practicable to  read  to  this  body  all  the  ser- 
mons of  Prof.  Swing,  delivered  during  a 
period  of  two  years  and  a  half,  in  order  to 
determine  the  point  at  issue.  The  defendant 
may  produce  any  condensed  evidence  availa- 
ble in  such  a  case,  the  burden  of  proof,  of 
course,  being  upon  the  accuser. 

8.  The  third  motion  was  denied  for  the 
reasons  already  given. 

4.  The  fourth  motion  was  denied  for  the 
reason  stated. 

5.  The  fifth  motion  was  denied  for  all  the 
reasons  aforesaid. 

(Signed,)  D.  S.  Johnson. 

R.  W.  Patterson. 

F.  A.  ElDDLE. 

The  following  resolution,  was  submitted  by 
Prof.  Blackburn. 

Resolved,  That  the  Presbytery  of  Chicago 
overture  the  general  assembly  to  institute 
measures  at  its  session  in  St.  Louis  in  1874, 
for  the  revision  of  the  book  of  discipline. 
This  Presbytery  does  not  deem  it  nec.ssary 


PIIOF.  PATTON'S  ARGUMENT. 


67 


to  refer  to  any  other  reasons  than  the  neces- 
sity evident  on  the  face  of  the  book  for  such 
revision,  and  the  experience  of  the  church. 

It  was  laid  on  the  table  for  the  present. 

Dr.  Patterson  offered  the  following,  which 
was  also  laid  on  the  table  for  the  present : 

Resolved,  That  in  the  judgment  of  this 
judicatory  it  is  due  to  the  interest  of  impar- 
tial justice  and  to  the  dignity  of  our  ecclesi- 
astical court  that  the  members  of  this  body, 
and  especially  the  parties,  or  either  of  them, 
engaged  in  the  case  now  pending,  should  ab- 
stain from  the  publication  and  circulation  of 
criticisms  upon  the  action  of  the  court  and 
from  public  discussion  of  the  merits  of  the 
case  outside  of  the  judicatory  before  the  final 
issue  is  reached. 

Prof.  Patton  then  entered  upon  his  argu- 
ment. 

ARGUMENT   OF    THE   PROSECUTOR. 

Moderator,  Fathers  and  Brethren :  I 
realize  the  responsibility  of  my  position,  and 
the  difficulty  of  my  undertaking.  Grave 
charges  are  preferred  against  a  popular 
minister.  He  is  beloved  by  his  congre- 
gation, and  he  has  the  sympathies  of 
the  city  To  many  of  you  he  stands 
in  the  relation  of  a  warm  personal 
friend.  You  and  he  have  been  in  the  habit 
of  taking  sweet  counsel  together.  It  is  as  if 
the  children  of  the  same  family  were  impan- 
eled as  a  jury  to  listen  to  the  charges  pre- 
ferred against  one  of  their  number  at  the 
hands  of  a  stranger.  I  should  not  think  it 
strange  if  your  first  impulse  were  to  stand  by 
your  friend ;  and,  whatever  your  doubts  may 
have  been  with  respect  to  his  soundness  in 
the  faith,  to  hush  them  in  your  determina- 
tion to  shield  him  from  reproach.  I  can 
understand,  Mr.  Moderator,  that  other  ques- 
tions might  be  raised  on  the  threshold  of  this 
discussion;  as,  why  interrupt  the  prosperity 
of  a  church  by  an  issue  like  this  ?  why  call 
men  from  the  active  duties  of  the  pastorate 
in  order  that  they  may  adjudicate  doctrinal 
issues?  Why  initiate  proceedings  which  may 
end  we  know  not  where,  and  be  fraught  with 
consequences  we  know  not  what?  To  these 
questions  I  answer :  We  can  afford  to  risk 
something  when  the  cause  of  truth  is  at 
stake.  He  who  comes  to  a  service  like  this,  it 
would  seem,  should  bring  with  him  gray 
hairs  and  a  ripe  experience.  From  my  heart 
I  wish  that  one  more  deserving  of  your  res- 
pect stood  in  my  place  to-day.    God  has  seen 


fit,  however,  to  cast  this  burden  upon  young 
shoulders,  and  I  go  on  doing  His  will.  What 
makes  me  attempt  to  stem  the  tide  of  public 
sentiment  is  the  consciousness  of  right,  and 
what  unseals  my  lips  in  a  presence  like  this 
is  the  thought  that  I  plead  the  injured  cause 
of  my  crucified  Lord.  May  He  who  is  my 
Advocate  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Majesty 
on  high  sustain  me  in  the  service  which  I 
undertake  to  do. 

Brethren  of  the  Presbj'tcry,  Ministers  and 
Elders:  You  and  I  have  taken  tlie  same 
vows — at  least  those  of  us  who  are  ministers 
have  taken  those  vows — that  we  will  be 
zealous  and  faithful  in  maintaining  the 
truths  of  the  gospel,  whatever  persecution  or 
opposition  may  arise  unto  us  on  that  account. 
Let  me  crave  your  indulgence  while  I  pre- 
sent the  evidence  and  the  arguments  on 
which  the  case  of  the  prosecution  rests.  Let 
me  ask  you  to  dismiss  from  your  mind  all 
personal  questions.  Let  me  ask  you  to  bring 
to  the  consideration  of  the  subject  a  judicial 
frame  of  mind.  Let  me  ask  you  so  to 
act  so  that  your  decision  shall  advance  the 
glory  of  God,  and  be  for  the  vindication  of 
His  truth. 

You  will  notice  that  the  charges  preferred 
against  Prof.  Swing  are  in  form  of  a  traverse 
of  his  ordination  vows.  Every  minister  at 
his  ordination  answers  in  the  affirmative  this 
question  :  "  Do  you  sincerely  receive  and 
adopt  the  Confession  of  Faith  of  this  Church 
as  containing  the  system  of  doctrine  taught 
in  the  Holy  Scriptures  ?"  He  answers  in  the 
affirmative  also  this  question  :  "Do  you  pro- 
mise to  be  zealous  and  faithful  in  maintaining 
the  truths  of  the  gospel  and  the  purity  and 
peace  of  the  Church  ?"  And  also  this  :  "  Do 
you  engage  to  be  faithful  and  diligent  in  the 
exercise  of  all  private  and  personal  duties  as 
become  you  as  a  christian  and  a  minister  of 
the  gospel  ?" 

Prof.  Swing  is  charged,  in  the  first  place, 
to  the  eflect  that  he  has  not  been  "  zealous 
and  faithful  in  maintaining  the  truths  of  the 
gospel,"  and  has  not  been  "  faithful  and  dili- 
gent in  the  exercise  of  the  public  duties  of 
his  office  as  such  minister." 

Now,  this  first  charge  is  set  forth  under 
twenty-four  specifications.  Let  us  get  fairly 
before  our  minds  the  object  of  a  specifica- 
tion. Suppose  that,  in  general  terms,  I  had 
preferred  the  charge  that  he  has  not  beea 
zealous  and  faithful  in  maintaining  the 
truths  of  the  gospel,  and  had  said  nothing 


68 


THE  TRIAL  OF  KEV.  DAVID  SWING. 


else.  The  accused  might  very  well  have 
said :  '-In  what  have  I  been  unfaithful  ? 
Where  have  I  violated  my  ordination  vows  ? 
How  is  it  possible  for  me  to  defend  myself 
against  a  charge  so  vague  as  this  ?"  There- 
fore, for  his  sake,  and  in  order  that  he  may 
be  advised  of  what  we  intend  to  prove,  we 
set  forth  the  items  in  respect  to  which  his 
unfaithfulness  is  found  ;  and  we  say  he  is 
unfaithful  in  these  several  forms  and  specifi- 
cations. Now,  if  that  is  true  it  would  seem 
to  follow  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  defense  to 
reply  to  these  specifications,  and  to  answer 
the  charges,  either  by  proving  that  the  facts 
alleged  have  never  existed,  or,  existing,  do 
not  constitute  offenses.  It  will  not  do  for 
the  defense  to  undertake  the  disproval  of  the 
charges  in  general  terms  by  proving  that 
Professor  Swing  has  been  faithful  and  zeal- 
ous in  respects  other  than  those  set  forth  in 
the  allegations,  as  an  illustration  will  show. 
Suppose,  for  instance,  that  I  were  to  charge 
a  member  of  the  church  with  conduct  unbe- 
coming a  Christian.  Specification  first:  That 
at  a  certain  time  and  place  he  was  guilty  of 
prevarication  ;  that  at  another  time,  and  un- 
der other  circumstances,  he  had  broken  a 
matrimonial  engagement ;  that  at  another 
time  he  was  presented  with  a  bill  for  a  debt 
which  he  had  contracted,  and  being  able  to 
pay  the  same,  he  refused.  Now,  clearly,  it 
would  not  disprove  this  charge  if  the  de- 
fense should  undertake  to  show  that  the  par- 
ty accused  never  stole  anything,  as  an  offset 
to  the  charge  that  he  had  told  a  lie ;  or 
that  his  relations  to  his  mother  and  sisters 
had  been  above  reproach,  as  an  offset  to  the 
charge  of  his  misconduct  with  reference  to 
some  other  person ;  or  that,  having  owed 
more  or  less  money,  when  the  bill  was  pre- 
sented he  did  pay  that  debt,  as  an  offset  to 
the  charge  that,- being  presented  with  this 
particular  bill,  and  being  able  to  pay  the 
same  he  did  refuse  to  do  so.  So  that  it  must 
be  clear,  if  anything  is  clear,  that  the  defense 
is  limited  to  the  disproval  of  these  particular 
specifications.  They  may  prove  that  Pro- 
fessor Swing  is  exemplary  in  his  private  life. 
That  has  not  been  called  in  question.  They 
may  prove  that  he  attracts  a  large  congre- 
gation. That  has  never  been  doubted.  They 
may  show  that,  on  Wednesday  nights,  the 
services  are  of  an  evangelical  character. 
Who  ever  said  the  contrary  ?  The  thing 
for  them  to  do,  and  the  responsibility  which 
rests  upon  them,  is   to  disprove  these  allega- 


tions. So  that  two  questions  arise :  First. 
These  specifications  are  true,  or  they  are  not 
true.  If  true  they  do  or  they  do  not  sus- 
tain the  charge.  Under  each  specification 
come  these  two  questions :  First.  Is  the  al- 
legation proved  ?  and  second,  if  it  is  proved 
does  it  constitute  an  offense  ?  These  are  the 
issues  before  us. 

Now,  if  that  is  distinctly  in  the  mind  of 
the  Judicatory,  let  us  raise  the  (juestion  on 
the  threshold,  as  to  what  is  the  standard  by 
which  it  is  to  be  decided  whether  these  alle- 
gations do  constitute  offenses.  Clearly,  what 
is  an  offense  in  one  church. might  not  be  an 
offense  in  another.  It  is  not  an  offense  in 
the  Methodist  church,  to  revile  the  doctrine 
of  Predestination,  nor  is  it  an  offense  in  the 
Baptist  church  to  speak  slightingly  of  Infant 
Baptism.  Why  ?  Simply  because  these  doc- 
trines are  not  only  not  believed  by  these  de- 
nominations, but  they  are  positively  denied.  It 
is  an  offense,  we  take  it,  to  revile  the  doctrine 
of  Predestination  and  to  speak  slightingly  of 
Infant  Baptism,  in  the  Presbyterian  church. 
Why?  Because  these  doctrines  enter  into 
the  very  life  of  Presbyterianism.  So  the 
question  comes  up  :  What  is  Presbyterian- 
ism ?  what  is  the  standard  of  Presbyterian- 
ism? 

Now,  sir,  happily,  this  is  a  question  in  ref- 
erence to  which  there  is  no  doubt.  If  the 
Presbyterian  church  were  called  upon  to 
vote  to-day,  or  to  answer  the  question.  What 
are  your  standards  ?  she  would  tell  you  the 
Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  the  Larger 
and  Shorter  Catechism,  and  the  inspired 
word  of  God  ;  and  she  would  give  no  uncer- 
tain sound.  But  happily  we  are  not  left  to 
the  expression  of  private  opinion  on  this 
subject.  I  refer  to  an  authority  which  will 
not  be  questioned  even  in  this  Court — the 
new  and  latest  digest  of  the  deliverances  of 
the  General  Assembly. 

The  history  of  the  Presbyterian  church 
has  been  a  history  identified  with  adhesion 
tothe  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith;  and 
even  though  it  so  happened,  unfortunately, 
in  one  period  of  her  history,  that  she  divided 
into  two  companies,  each  company  took  the 
same  Confession  of  Faith.  And  when,  in 
the  process  of  time,  it  seemed  wise  that  the 
separated  companies  should  come  together 
again,  they  came  together  on  the  basis  of 
the  Confession  of  Faith. 

I  shall  not  take  up  the  time  of  this  body 
by  reciting  the  history  of  the  Presbyterian 


PKOF.  PATTONS  ARGUMENT. 


69 


church  during  those  years  of  divi.sion.  There 
are  older  members  on  the  floor  of  this  Pres- 
bytery who  are  familiar  with  that  history. 
Nor  shall  I  go  minutely  into  the  historj'  of 
those  measures  which  led  to  this  reunion. 
There  are  those  on  the  floor  of  this  Presby- 
tery who  took  an  imjiortant  part  in  the  pro- 
ceedings which  led  to  this  happy  result.  But, 
sir,  I  will  call  your  attention  and  the  atten- 
tion of  the  Presbytery  to  this  fact:  That 
never  in  the  history  of  those  proceedings,  by 
one  side  or  by  the  other,  was  it  ever  supposed 
that  the  Presbyterian  church  was  to  drift 
from  her  anchorage,  or  lose  her  hold  upon 
the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith.  And 
in  proof  of  that  I  will  read  a  portion  of  the 
report  presented  in  1868,  and  containing  the 
"  proposed  terms  of  reunion  between  the  two 
branches  of  the  Presbyterian  church  in  the 
United  States  of  America."     Page  71. 

The  reunion  shall  be  effected  on  the  doctri- 
nal and  ecclesiastical  basis  of  our  common 
standards.  The  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments  shall  be  acknov/ledged  to  be 
the  inspired  word  of  God,  and  the  only  in- 
fallible rule  of  faith  and  practice.  The  Con- 
fession of  Faith  shall  continue  to  be  sincerely 
received  and  adopted  as  containing  the  sj's- 
tem  ot  doctrine  taught  in  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures, it  being  understood  that  this  Confes- 
sion is  received  in  its  proper  historical — that 
is,  the  Calvinistic  or  reformed  sense.  It  is 
also  understood  that  the  various  meth- 
ods of  viewing,  stating,  explaining  and  illus- 
trating the  Confession  which  do  not  impair 
the  reformed  or  Calvinistic  system,  are  to  be 
freel}^  allowed  in  the  united  Church  as  they 
have  hitherto  been  allowed  in  the  separate 
Churches. 

This  proposed  basis  was  not  accepted,  but 
I  read  it  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that, 
v?hile  in  the  interests  of  what  might  be 
called  a  broad  interpretation,  it  was  pro- 
posed to  allow  in  the  reunited  church  cer- 
tain modes  of  viewing,  stating,  explaining 
and  illustrating  the  doctrines  —  that  those 
modes  of  viewing,  stating  and  illustrating, 
were  only  such  as  did  not  impair  the  integrity 
of  the  reformed  or  Calvinistic  system.  The 
broadest  basis  that  was  ever  dreamed  of 
by  Old  School  or  by  New,  was  a  basis  which 
contemplated  the  preservation  in  its  integ- 
rity of  the  reformed  or  Calvinistic  system. 
But  it  was  thought  better,  to  avoid  future 
misunderstanding,  that  they  should  come  to- 
gather  on  a  basis  simpler  than  this,  and  ac- 
cordingly, in  1869,  (the  page  I  refer  to  is  91 
of  the  Digest)  a  plan  of  reunion  for  the  Pres- 
byterian  Church   in   the    United    States   of 


America,  was  adopted  ;  and  it  reads  as  fol- 
lows, section  2 : 

The  reunion  shall  be  effected  on  the  doc- 
trinal and  ecclesiastical  basis  of  our  common 
standards.  The  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments  shall  be  acknowledged  to 
be  the  inspired  word  of  God,  and  the  only 
infallible  rule  of  faith  and  jiractice.  The 
Confes.'^ion  of  Faith  shall  continue  to  be  sin- 
cerely received  and  adopted  as  containing 
the  system  of  doctrine  taught  in  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  and  the  government  and  disci- 
pline of  the  Presbyterian  Ciiurch  in  the 
United  States  shall  be  approved  as  contain- 
ing the  principles  and  rules  of  her  polity. 

This  plan  of  reunion  was  submitted  to  the 
Presbyteries.  It  met  with  their  approval ; 
and  the  consummation  of  the  union  is  set 
forth  in  the  following  declaration,  (page  96) 
which  was  adopted  unanimously  in  both  as- 
semblies by  a  rising  vote. 

This  assembly,  having  received  and  exam- 
ined the  statement  of  the  votes  of  the  several 
Presbyteries  on  the  ba'^is  of  the  reunion  of 
the  two  bodies  now  claiming  the  name  and 
the  right  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America,  which  basis  is  in  the 
following,  [here  follows  the  basis  as  already 
read]  does  hereby  find  and  declare  that  said 
basis  of  union  has  been  approved  by  more 
than  two-thirds  of  the  Presbyteries  connected 
with  this  branch  of  the  church, — and  where- 
as, the  other  branch  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States,  now  silting  in 
the  Third  (or  the  First)  Presbyterian  Church 
in  the  city  of  Pittsburg,  has  reported  to  this 
Assembly  that  said  basis  has  been  approved 
by  more  than  two-thirds  of  the  Presbyteries 
connected  with  that  branch  of  the  church  ; 

NOW,  THEREFORE,  WE  DO  SOLEMNLY  DECLAKE 
THAT  SAID  BASIS  OF  REUMON  IS  OF  BINDING 
FORCE. 

Is  this  Presbytery  prepared  to  call  in  ques- 
tion the  wisdom  of  the  Presbj'terian  Church 
in  these  United  States  ?  Is  this  Presbytery 
prepared  to  take  action  which  would  be 
defiant  of  the  declaration  of  the  General 
Assembly,  whereby  the  Confession  of  Faith 
was  declared  to  be  our  doctrinal  stand- 
ard? And  yet,  sir,  this  Presbytery  did 
listen  to  the  accused,  and  gave  some  indica- 
tion of  approval,  not  in  its  corporate  action, 
but  by  the  action  of  individual  members,  to 
the  plea  of  Prof.  Swing,  in  which  he  admit- 
ted that  he  was  not  in  accord  with  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith— that  he  had  actually  de- 
parted from  that  Confession  of  Faith  so  far 
as  one  or  two  of  its  doctrines  are  concerned  ; 
and  what  is  more,  when  he  affirmed  in  the 
face  of  this  solemn  declaration  that  the  Pres- 
byterian Church  was  a  very  different  thing 
actually  from  what  it  is  in  its  formulated 


ro 


THE  TRIAL  OF  REV.  DAYID  SWING. 


theology.  "SVhy,  Mr.  Moderator,  the  plea  of 
Prof.  Swing  is  an  admission  that  he  does  not 
believe  the  doctrines  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  or  take  this  Confession  of  Faith  as 
expressing  his  belief  and  as  containing  the 
system  of  doctrine  taught  in  the  word  of 
God. 

Now,  I  have  heard  it  said  more  than  once, 
and  it  has  even  been  intimated  on  the  floor 
of  this  house,  when  the  body  was  in  delibera- 
tive session,  that  this  is  an  issue  which  in- 
volves the  discussion  of  the  questions  which 
caused  the  separation  of  the  old  and  the  new 
school.  I  beg  to  protest  against  any  such 
interpretation  of  the  course  of  the  prosecutor. 
If  the  prosecutor  is  advised  of  the  differences 
which  divided  this  church,  he  does  not  find 
in  any  of  the  charges  and.  specifications  set 
forth  in  the  indictment,  anything  which  in- 
volves a  discussion  of  those  issues.  I  remem- 
ber very  well  that  Prof.  Swing,  in  his  plea, 
claimed  to  be  a  New  School  Presbyterian. 
He  was  not  charged  with  being  an  Old  School 
Presbyterian.  The  plea,  sir,  had  no  relev- 
ancy, except  as  it  was  meant  to  enlist  the 
sympathies  of  men  on  the  ground  of  past 
divisions. 

He  is  charged,  with  unfaithfulness  in 
his  pastoral  work,  and  in  his  functions  as  a 
Christian  minister.  He  is  charged  with  not 
sincerely  receiving  and  adopting  the  Confes- 
sion of  Faith  as  containing  the  system  of 
doctrine  taught  in  the  word  of  God — charges, 
sir,  which  would  have  been  relevant  in  any 
of  the  years  of  the  churches  separation  in  the 
Old  School  or  in  the  New.  I  have  a 
good  opinion,  sir,  of  the  New  School 
Church  as  it  existed  before  the  union, 
and  I  believe,  that  that  church  believed 
in  the  inspiration  of  the  scriptures,  held  to 
the  doctrine  of  justification  by  Faith,  stood 
upon  the  basis  of  the  Nicene  Creed,  and  would 
have  vindicated  as  readily  as  the  Old  School 
the  doctrine  that  it  is  through  the  prf:cious 
blood  of  Christ,  and  that  alone,  that  we  have 
salvation,  I  hope  that  the  insult  wUl  not 
be  offered  to  that  branch,  and  if  it  is  ofiored, 
I  hope  some  prominent  member  of  that 
former  New  School  Church  wil)  stand  up  to 
resent  it  by  saying  that  these  are  7iot  the  doc- 
trines ufion  which  the  Presbyterian  church 
was  divided. 

If  we  are  prepared,  therefore,  to  accept  the 
solemn  declaration  of  the  two  assemblies  in 
the  year  1869,  to  the  effect  that  the  Confes- 
sion of  Faith  shall   be   sincerely   received  as 


containing  the  system  of  doctrine  taught  in 
the  word  of  God,  and  are  prepared  to  act 
upon  this  as  our  doctrinal  basis,  the  simple 
question  before  this  Presbytery,  is  whether 
Prof.  Swing  has  contravened  this  Confession 
of  Faith  or  has  violated  his  ordination  vows 
as  far  as  those  vows  imply  a  harmony  with 
the  Confession  of  Faith. 

If  there  ever  was  a  time  when  the  Presby- 
terian church  had  an  opportunity  of  saying 
that  she  had  drifted  away  from  her  old  moor- 
ings, if  there  ever  was  an  opportunity  for  the 
Presbyterian  church  to  affirm  that  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith  no  longer  expressed  her  sen- 
timents, if  there  ever  was  a  time  that  the 
Presbyterian  church  was  called  upon  to  say 
that  the  Confession  of  Faith  was  a  dead-let- 
ter, it  was  when  this  re-union  took  place; 
and  for  a  minister  of  the  Presbyterian  church 
under  grave  charges,  to  stand  up  and  say 
in  the  face  of  declarations  made  only  four 
years  ago  that  the  Presbyterian  church  no 
longer  believes  that  Confession  of  Faith,  is 
for  him  to  offer  an  insult  to  the  Presby- 
terian church,  and  if  we  vere  loyal  Presby- 
ters we  would  resent  it  on  the  spot. 

Now,  Mr.  Moderator,  I  wish  to  pass  to 
the  consideration  of  the  specifications  of 
charge  one.  I  set  out  in  the  first  speci- 
fication that  he  has  not,  in  his  sermons, 
given  any  distinct  and  unequivocal  state- 
ment of  certain  doctrines,  (mentioning 
them)  to-wit:  Regeneration,  the  person  of 
our  Lord,  salvation  by  Christ,  eternal  pun- 
ishment, the  personality  of  the  Spirit,  the 
Trinity,  and  the  fall  of  man.  I  set  out, 
moreover,  that  when  he  does  refer  to  these 
doctrines  he  makes  use  of  equivocal  lan- 
guage ;  and  moreover,  that  the  language  he 
does  employ  is  all  capable  of  construction  in 
harmony  with  Unitarian  theology. 

The  sermons  have  been  put  in  evidence. 
I  shall  ngt  read  these  sermons  through.  The 
members  of  the  Presbytery  can  all  get 
copies  of  "Truths  for  To-day  ;"  and  I  afiirm 
without  fear  of  contradiction — I  affirm,  chal- 
Unging  contradiction — that  these  sermons  do 
not  contain  any  distinct  and  unequivocal 
statements  with  respect  to  these  named  doc- 
trines. The  person  of  our  Lord.  We  know 
what  that  means.  We  believe  that  Christ  is 
God.  We  believe  that  Christ  is  man — that 
he  had  a  true  body  and  a  reasonable  soul. 
Believing  that  (I  appeal  to  the  experience  of 
ministers),  would  it  not  be  a  strange  thing 
if,  in  the  course  of  your  preaching,  you  did 


PROF.  PATTON'S  ARGUMENT. 


71 


not  Foniphow,  write  a  sentence  to  the  effect 
that  Christ  was  God,  or  to  the  effect  thut 
Christ  was  man.  Find  me  a  sentence  in  any 
of  Professor  Swing's  sermons,  in  which  he 
speaks  of  the  man  Christ  Jesus,  or  of  Jesus 
Christ  as  God.  That  is  singular,  is  it  not? 
We  believe  that  regeneration  is  an  act  of 
God's  Spirit,  whereby  he  persuades  and  en- 
ables us  to  embrace  Jesus  Christ  as  He  is 
freely  offered  to  us  in  the  gospel.  Find  that 
doctrine  in  any  of  Professor  Swing's  ser- 
mons. You  will  find  "regeneration,''  but  I 
will  prove  to  you  by  and  by  that  you  will 
find  that  in  any  Unitarian  book. 

We  believe  in  the  doctrine  of  "Eternal 
Punishment;"  that  is  to  say,  sir,  we  believe 
there  is  to  be  a  final  judgment,  and  that  as 
a  judicial  act,  God  will  send  the  wicked 
into  everlasting  punishment.  I  cannot  help 
it  if  that  is  a  doctrine  which  is  unpleasant 
to  the  feelings.  It  is  in  the  Confession  of 
Faith.  I  believe  it,  sir,  though  that  is  not  the 
question  we  are  considering  ;  but  it  is  wheth- 
er it  is  there.  Find  that  doctrine  in  Profes- 
sor Swing's  sermons.  You  cannot  do  it. 
We  believe  in  the  Trinity.  We  believe 
that  there  is  one  God  ;  that  there  are  three 
persons  in  the  Godhead,  the  same  in  sub- 
stance, equal  in  power  and  glory  Find 
that  doctrine  in  Professor  Swing's  sermons. 
You  cannot  do  it.  You  can  find  that  the 
trinity  is  alluded  to.  You  will  find  it  ridiculed. 
You  will  find  equivocal  statements  made  re- 
specting it ;  but  find  the  doctrine.  I  defy 
you  to  do  it.  We  believe  in  the  fall  of  man. 
We  believe  that  we  all  sinned  in  Adam,  and 
fell  with  him  in  his  first  transgression.  Find 
that  doctrine  in  Professor  Swing's  sermons. 
You  cannot  do  it. 

Now,  I  ask  you,  Mr.  Moderator,  if  it  is 
not  a  strange  thing  that  a  Presbyterian  min- 
ister, preaching  to  a  Presbyterian  congrega- 
tion, publishing  sermons  over  his  own  name, 
and  allowing  them  to  go  out  as  representing 
his  mind,  should  allow  these  sermons  to  go 
out  without  a  solitary  unequivocal  reference 
to  the  doctrines  which  are  cardinal  to  the 
Christian  religion,  and  constitute  the  foun- 
dation upon  which  Christianity  rests.  A 
singular  thing,  sir  I  But  I  do  not  wish  to 
be  understood  as  saying  that  there  are  no 
references  in  language  which  unpracticed 
ears  might  call  these  doctrines,  because  I  am 
going  to  quote  some  of  them,  and  I  am  go- 
ing to  quote  some  of  the  strongest  i,assages 
you   can    find:  I   am  going  to  quote    some 


of  those  passages  which  the  elders  of  the 
church,  in  presenting  their  testimony,  set 
forth  as  teaching  these  doctrines  in  simple, 
unequivocal  terms,  showing  the  difference 
between  their  construction  and  my  construc- 
tion of  the  same  statements.  "Truths  for 
To-day,"  page  41. 

The  howls  of  wild  beasts  died  away  from 
the  amphitheatre  when  this  rule  was  spoken 
by  the  Saviour. 

Unpracticed  ears  might  say  that  means 
salvation  in  the  evangelical  sense.     Page  64. 

The  inferences  from  this  dependence  of 
human  purity  upon  God  must  be  these: 
Christ,  in  unfolding  the  character  of  God, 
in  tearing  down  all  idols,  and  in  filling  the 
universe  with  one  spirit,  infinite  and  lilessed, 
has  done  a  work  that  should  bind  Him  upon 
the  forehead  and  heart  of  man. 

I  have  no  fault  to  find  with  that  sentiment, 
but  it  is  a  sentiment  any  Unitarian  would 
express.     Pages  78  and  79. 

Let  us  approach  now  a  more  warmly  dis- 
puted proposition  that  the  divineness  of 
Christ  is  something  essential  in  the  Christian 
system.  The  Trinity,  as  formerly  stated, 
cannot  be  experienced.  Man  has  not  the 
power  to  taste  the  threeness  of  one,  nor  the 
oneness  of  three,  and  see  that  it  is  "good." 
Man  cannot  "  do  His  will  '  here  and  "  know 
of  the  doctrine  whether  it  be  for  God.''  It 
is  not  conceivable  that  any  one  will  pretend 
to  have  experienced  three  persons  as  being 
one  person,  the  same  in  substance,  and  at 
the  same  time  equal. 

I  quoted  that  to  one  of  the  gentlemen  on 
the  stand  and  asked  if  he  regarded  it  as  an 
unequivocal  statement  of  the  deity  of 
Christ,  and  he  said  "  certainly."  It  is  easy 
to  understand  how  these  brethren  who  come 
here  to  testify  in  behalf  of  the  fidelity  of 
their  minister,  say  they  have  heard  him 
preach  the  doctrine  of  the  deity  of  Christ, 
when  they  take  this  sentence  as  expressing 
the  doctrine.  It  may  express  it,  and  it  may 
not.     That  is  the  point  under  discussion. 

But  while  human  experience  cannot  ap- 
proach the  trinity,  it  can  approach  the 
divineness  of  Christ ;  for  if  Christ  be  not 
divine,  every  impulse  of  the  Christian  world 
falls  to  a  lower  octave,  and  light,  and  love, 
and  hope  alike  decline.  There  is  no  doctrine 
into  which  the  heart  may  so  inweave  itself 
and  find  anchorage  and  peace  as  in  this 
divineness  of  the  Lord.  Hence,  Christianity 
bears  readily  the  idea  of  three  ofllccs,  and 
permits  the  one  God  to  appear  in  Father,  or 
in  Son,  or  in  Spirit. 

That  will  also  be  quoted  as  plenary  evi- 
dence that  he  preaches  the  deity  of  Christ. 

Here  is  evidence  (?)  that  he  preaches  the 
doctrine  of  the  trinity. 


72 


THE  TKIAL  OF  REV.  DAVID  SWING. 


And  hence  Christianity  bears  readily  the 
idea  of  three  offi.'es,  and  permits  theoneGod 
to  appear  in  Father,  or  in  Son,  or  in  Spirit; 
but  when  the  divine  is  excluded  from  Christ, 
and  He  is  left  a  mortal  only,  the  heart  robbed 
of  the  place  where  the  glory  of  God  was  once 
seen,  and  where  the  body  was  once  seen 
rising  from  the  tomb,  and  where  the  words 
were  spoken,  "Come  unto  me  all  ye  that 
labor  and  are  heavy  laden,"  is  emptied  of  a 
world  of  light  and  hope. 

That  is  not  the  trinity.  That  is  Unitarian- 
ism.  That  is  the  doctrine  of  James  Freeman 
Clarke.     Page  2G3,  "  Truths  for  To-day." 

"  In  the  beginning  was  the  Word."  That 
Greek  term  which  we  translate  Word  had 
long  been  upon  the  tongues  of  scholars.  Its 
meaning  was  always  somewhat  hidden.  _  It 
seems  to  have  represented  the  SupremeBeing 
out  upon  an  errand  of  mercy,  or  creation,  as 
light  flies  away  from  the  sun.  It  is  that 
light  before  which  darkness  flees  ;  that  life 
before  which  death  retreats.  It  is  indefin- 
able and  inconceivable.  Yet  John  saw  this 
Loffos  entering  the  human  body  as  light 
seems  to  rush  into  the  eye  and  sound  into  the 
ear.  It  dwell  among  us,  and  beheld  its  glory, 
full  of  grace  and  truth. 

Would  any  brother  here  say  that  is  a  clear 
statement  of  Christ's  deity?  Well,  then, 
any  Arian  could  say  just  as  much,  and  we 
know  that.  Now,  mind,  I  am  not  proving  or 
alleging  that  Prof.  Swing  denies  the  deity  of 
Christ  or  the  Trinity.  1  t^m  simply  alleging 
that  he  does  not  teach  these  doctrines  un- 
equivocally.    Page  266. 

Out  of  John's  soul  we  see  issuing  these 
ideas :  Christ,  the  divine ;  Christ,  the 
Saviour ;  Christ,  the  intimate  friend.  The 
opening  chapter  reveals  the  divinity  of 
John'sniaster,  and  the  office  of  Saviour  is 
revealed  in  every  page. 

Now  before  I  pass  on  I  want  to  make  good 
the  proposition  that  these  are  not  unequivocal 
statements  ;  and  I  will  read  to  you  from.  Dr. 
Kyder,  who  does  not  claim  to  believe  in  the 
deity  of  Christ.  He  says  (and  I  quoted  this 
sentence  to  one  of  the  gentlemen  on  the  wit- 
ness stand,  and  he  was  not  sure  whether  it 
was  an  evangelical  sentiment  or  not),  in  his 
sermon  entitled  "  Is  Universalism  Evan- 
gelical?" 

Christ  is  with  us  literally  the  hope  of  glo^J^ 
Without  Ilim  as  the  interpreter  of  God  to 
man  and  the  mediator  between  Him  and  us, 
we  are  without  God  and  without  hope  in  the 
world. 

Dr.  Ryder  also  says  : 

As  to  the  several  theological  tenets  alreadj- 
named,  it  may  be  proper  to  say,  so  far  as  I 
have  any  right  to  speak  for  the  order,  that 
XJniversalists,  in  rejecting  the  doctrine  of 
original  depravity,  put  in  its  jdace  what  they 


think  is  more  rational  as  well  as  more  Scrip- 
tural, and  that  is  rrcqiiired  de-pv&yitj.  Man 
is  created  innocent — all  men  are — but  by 
voluntary  acts  they  become  sinners,  and  so 
have  need  of  a  Saviour  to  guide  and  sanctify. 
The  deity  of  Christ  we  also  reject,  but 
are  agreed  in  our  view  of  the  divinity  of 
Christ.     On  this  our  creed  is  specific. 

So  that  divine  and  divineness  do  not  prove 
"  deity  "  and  "  God-head  !  " 

We  believe  in  the  fall  of  man.  If  there 
is  anything  which  we  regard  as  important,  it 
is  that  by  one  man's  disobedience,  sin  entered 
into  the  world,  and  death  by  sin,  and  that  so 
death  passed  upon  all  men  fpr  that  all  have 
sinned.  Now,  you  would  hardly  think  that  a 
Presbyterian  minister,  ofiiciating  in  a  Prceby- 
terian  pulpit,  and  preaching  to  Presbyterian 
people,  would  ever  call  in  question  that  doc- 
trine, or  would  even  leave  it  to  the  conjec- 
ture of  his  hearers  as  to  whether  it  was  true 
or  not.     But  let  us  pass  on  to  page  98. 

If  God  made  man  upright,  then  out  of 
that  original  piety  there  would  have  rolled 
up  each  day,  truth  for  the  day,  clear  and 
welcome,  clear  because  welcome.  But,  if 
man  subsequently  fell  into  a  sinful  state,  then 
with  this  spiritual  separation  the  evidence 
would  each  century  become  less  in  quantity 
and  weaker  in  power,  and  we  should,  after  a 
time,  witness  a  world  in  which  the  heart  of 
a  sinner  would  be  bound  to  only  the  evidence 
of  a  saint.  Depravity  would  be  seeking  con- 
viction from  proof  that  was  arranged  for  a 
saint.  Whether  our  world  is  not  just  such  a 
one  I  leave  to  your  personal  conjecture. 

I  do  not  want  anybody  to  leave  anything 
to  my  "  conjecture "  when  God  speaks. 
Page  76. 

If  God  is  the  life  of  the  world  then  the 
soul  that  separates  itself  from  Him  by  un- 
belief would  seem  to  have  broken  the  chain 
of  perpetual  being.  Hence  some  infer  the 
annihilation  of  the  wicked,  others  their  loss 
of  happiness  rather  than  of  existence. 
Page  81. 

It  is  not  enough  that  faith  in  a  divine  be- 
ing is  a  saving  grace,  and  that  repentance  is 
also  a  saving  grace,  and  that  a  new  heart  is 
possible  or  pardon  is  possible  to  the  Christian 
system. 

Repentance  I  saving  grace !  new  heart  ! 
pardon  !  These  are  household  words  in  our 
evangelical  families,  and  the  people  listening 
to  such  expressions  never  raise  the  question 
as  to  whether  they  are  used  in  an  evangeli- 
cal or  non-evangelical  sense  ;  do  not  know 
that  Unitarians  use  the  same  language  ;  and 
they  may,  therefore,  be  pardoned  for  not 
raising  the  inquiry.  But  one  accustomed  to 
these  distinctions,  and  having  reason  to  be 
conversant  to   some   extent  with   Unitarian 


PKOF.   TATTON'S  AliGUMENT. 


73 


theology,  and  being  led  by  the  statements  of 
Professor  Swing  on  otlier  subjects,  to  the 
presumption  that  he  preaches  Unitarian  the- 
ology, is  apt  to  give  these  statements 
very  little  value  until  they  are  very  thor- 
oughly scrutinized.  They  may  be  orthodox 
and  they  may  bo  heterodox  ;  we  do  not  know. 
Page  81. 

Cast  yourself  into  the  laws  of  faith  and 
conversion,  and  repentance,  and  love  and 
hope,  and  of  the  Divine  Lord,  and  upon 
these  be  carried  by  a  new,  recreative  expe- 
rience over  to  a  new  world,  cahed  a  new 
heart  here — called  heaven  hereafter. 

What  does  he  mean  ?  Now  here  are  min- 
isters who  have  studied  theology  in  the  sem- 
inary, and  here  are  elders  who  have  sub- 
scribed to  the  Confession  of  Faith  :  I  chal- 
lenge you  to  tell  me  what  he  means.  You 
cannot  do  it.     Page  179. 

Our  tears  might  well  mingle  with  those  of 
the  exiled  banker,  if  he  be  penitent,  and  we 
may  say  along  with  him,  "we  stand  afar  off." 
This  Christ  has  fulfilled  a  law  which  we  have 
broken,  and  to  us,  no  longer  able  to  flee  unto 
ourselves  and  find  peace.  He  says  :  "  Come 
unto  me  all  ye  that  labor  and  are  heavy  laden, 
and  I  will  give  you  rest." 

If  the  defense  quote  anything  in  reference 
to  the  sacrificial  character  of  Christ's  death, 
they  will  quote  that  passage.     Page  238. 

Salvation  of  man,  therefore,  must  be  man's 
transformation  from  a  sinful  to  a  holy  na- 
ture. It  is  a  return  of  that  which  was  lost. 
A  legal  salvation  may  be  a  preliminary  or 
concomitant,  but  cannot,  in  morals,  be  the 
chief  salvation. 

Now  if  there  is  anything  prominent  in 
Evangelical  Theology  it  is  that  the  first 
thing  in  salvation  is  the  atonement  for  our 
sins  by  the  precious  blood  of  Jesus  Christ. 
If  Prof.  Swing  admits  tlint  doctrine  he  slurs 
it  over  and  passes   i  -  of  minor  impor- 

tance. 

In  the  financial  department  of  life  a  debtor 
can  be  saved  by  having  his  debts  paid.  Con- 
demned to  death  a  criminal  can  be  saved  by 
a  letter  of  pardon,  having  upon  it  the  seal  of 
a  King ;  but,  in  morals,  a  salvation  is  not 
simply  a  discharge  t''"in  a  debt  or  an  escape 
from  a  penalty,  but  a  change  in  the  spirit, 
transition  from  vice  to  virtue. 

All  through  his  preaching  the  antithesis  is 
sin  and  holiness.  You  are  bad,  and  there- 
fore made  to  suffer.  Be  good  and  you  will 
be  happy.  Not  one  word  of  the  expiation 
which  comes  to  us  through  the  satisfaction 
of  a  broken  law,  and  pardon  through  the 
vicarious  atonement  of  Jesus  Christ. 

In  the  dark  Kansas  days  there  was  such  a 
thing  as  "constructive  treason,"  a  treason 


inferred  from  resemblance  to  real  treason* 
but  there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  an  inferen- 
tial salvation,  a  constructive  release,  a  tech- 
nical escape.  The  moaning  of  the  term  is  to 
be  determined  by  its  location.  In  morals 
salvation  is  spiritual  perfection.  The  for- 
giveness of  past  sins,  the  ])ayment  of  a 
moral  debt,  may  be  preliminaries,  or  attend- 
ant events,  and  may,  by  their  importance, 
aspire  to  the  name  of  a  rescue;  [The  sacri- 
fice of  Christ  "aspiring  to  the  name  of  a 
rescue  !"]  but  these  titles  are  the  gift  of 
gratitude  rather  than  of  fact,  for  after  a 
man's  sins  are  all  forgiven  or  atoned  for,  he 
stands  forth  still  lost,  for  he  retains  the  low 
nature  that  produces  sins  and  made  necessary 
the  pardon  or  the  atonement.  If  to  us,  lost 
in  a  wilderness,  without  a  sun,  or  a  star,  or  a 
path  to  guide,  there  comes  a  benevolent  her- 
mit, a  dear  mentor,  and  leads  us  to  the  right 
path,  and  sets  our  faces  homeward,  he  is  at 
once  our  saviour  ;  but  our  perfect  salvation 
will  come  from  our  f/oincj  iJiat  path.  Our  ^o- 
ing  a.ndi  t\iQ  mentor  combine  in  the  escape; 
and  yet  he  lives  in  memory  as  the  kind  sa- 
viour of  our  bewildered  hearts. 

Also  page  136.  I  am  quoting  from  "Truths 
for  To-Day.'' 

If  our  able  statesmen,  with  the  written 
Constitution  before  them,  have  thus  far  been 
unable  to  determine  whether  the  document 
permits  or  forbids  the  system  of  National 
banks,  why  is  it  such  a  shameful  phenomenon 
when  clergymen  differ  about  the  word 
"atonement"  or  signification  of  the  word 
"everlasting,"  or  the  word  "inspiration" 
itself. 

It  is  pretty  clear  that  Prof.  Swing  re- 
garded doubt  upon  these  subjects  as  at  least 
pardonable. 

Now  these  statements  will  appear  in  their 
light  as  being  more  or  less  equivocal,  if  I 
read  to  you  certain  portions  of  a  book  which 
is  printed  by  the  authority  of  the  American 
Unitarian  Association,  and  the  author  of 
which  is  James  Freeman  Clarke.  It  is  en- 
titled "Orthodoxy:  Its  Truths  and  its  Er- 
rors."    Page  152. 

The  gospel  of  Christ,  as  we  understand  it, 
undertakes  to  eflect  an  entire  change — a  radi- 
cal reform  in  human  character. 

Now  suppose  I  am  evangelical,  preaching 
to  you,  an  evangelical  audience  ;  I  want  you 
to  say  whether  I  am  not  preaching  evangeli- 
cally. 

It  proposes  to  reform  this  life  by  changing 
the  heart,  by  giving  it  new  aims,  new  affec- 
tions, new  asplratio^ns,  new  objects  of  love 
and  pursuit.  Jesus  does  not  endeavor  to  al- 
ter and  improve,  a  little  here  and  a  little 
there,  on  the  outside  of  the  character,  to  im- 
prove a  little  our  modes  of  character  in  this 
and  to  the  other  pnrticular ;  but  he  alters  the 
character  by  altering  the  fundamental  ideas 
and  inspiring  inward   life.     This   wonderful 


THE  TEIAL  OF  KEY.  DAVID  SWING. 


74 

change,  which  takes  place  in  the  profoundest 
depth  of  our  nature,  under  the  influence  _  of 
the  gospel— this  great  event  of  lite,  which 
forms  the  turning" point  of  our  being  and  his- 
tory—is  called  in  the  New  Testament  'the 
new  birth,"  "regeneration,"  "to  be  born 
again,"  "to  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost 
and  with  tire,"  "to  put  off  the  old  man,"  "to 
have  Christ  formed  within  us." 

I  do  not  think  Prof.  Swing  ever  said  any- 
thing more  decided  than  that. 

Now  let  us  read  what  he  has  to  say  on  the 
subject  of  God.  Bear  in  mind  he  is  a  Uni- 
tarian.    Page  205. 

Those,  therefore,  who  could  find  God  no- 
where else,  found  him  in  Christ.  Those  who 
saw  hi7n,  saw  the  Father.  As  Avhen  through 
a  window  we  behold  the  heavens,  as  when  in 
a  mirror  we  see  an  image  of  the  sun,  we  do 
not  speak  of  the  window  or  the  mirror,  but 
say  that  we  see  the  sun  and  the  heavens,  so 
those  who  looked  at  Christ  said  that  they  saw 
God. 

The  Apostle  said  that  God  was  in  Christ, 
and  this  was  wholly  true.  Christians  after- 
wards said  that  Christ  was  God ;  and  they 
thought  they  were  only  saying  the  same 
thing.  They  said  that  Christ  had  a  divine 
nature  as  well  as  a  human  nature;  and  in 
this  also  there  was  no  essential  falsehood,  for 
when  we  speak  of  our  nature,  we  intend 
merely  by  it  those  elements  of  character 
which  are  original  and  permanent,  which  are 
not  acquired,  do  not  alter,  and  are  never  lost. 
God  dwelt  in  the  soul  of  Christ  thus  constant- 
ly, thus  permanently.  The  word  thus  be- 
came tlesh,  and  dwelt  among  us.  The  word 
of  the  Lord  came  to  the  prophets,  but  it 
dwelt  in  Christ.  He  and  his  Father  were 
able  to  see  God  manifested  in  man  as  a  living, 
present  reality.  "Here,"  they  say,  "is  God  ; 
we  have  found  God.  He  is  in  Christ.  We 
can  see  Him  there.'' 

Is  it  any  wonder  that  men  should  have 
called  Jesus  God?  that  they  should  call  llim 
so  still?  In  Him  truly  "dwelt  the  fullness  of 
the  Godhead  bodily  ;"'  and  this  indwelling 
spirit  expressed  itself  in  what  He  said  and 
what  He  did.  When  Jesus  speaks  it  is  as  if 
God  speaks.  When  Jesus  does  anything  it  is 
as  if  we  saw  God  do  it.  It  becomes  to  us  an 
expression  of  the  Divine  character.  When 
Jesus  says  to  the  sinner,  "Go  and  sin  no 
more,''  we  see  in  this  a  manifestation  not 
merely  of  His  own  compassion,  but  of  God's 
forgiving  love;  and  when  He  dies,  although 
God  cannot,  yet  He  dies  according  to  the 
Divine  will,  and  thus  expresses  God's  wil- 
lingness to  suffer  for  the  redemption  of  the 
world. 

When  we  look  at  Christ's  Divinity  from 
this  point  of  view,  the  distinction  between 
the  Trinitarian  and  the  Unitarian  seems  al- 
most to  disappear.  Still  the  question  remains. 
Is  it  right  to  call  Christ  God  ?  The  distinc- 
tion remains  between  saying  "  God  was  in 
Christ"  and  saying  "Christ  was  God."  In 
short,   was  the  person   of  Christ   human    or 


Divine?  We  agree  with  the  orthodox  in 
saying  that  Christ  had  two  natures — a  Divine 
nature  and  a  human  nature.  We  also  main- 
tain that  he  had  one  person.  But  the  ques- 
tion comes,  was  that  one  person  Divine  or 
human,  finite  or  infinite,  dependent  or  abso- 
lute ?  The  consciousness  of  the  one  person 
is  a  single  consciousness.  Christ  could  not  at 
the  same  time  have  been  conscious  of  know- 
ing all  things  and  of  not  knowing  all  things, 
of  having  ail  power,  and  of  not  having  it,  of 
depending  on  God  for  all  things,  and  of  not 
depending  for  anything.  One  of  two  things 
alone  is  possible. 

Either  Christ  was  God,  united  with  a  hu- 
man soul,  or  He  was  a  human  soul  united 
with  God.  When  Christ  uses  the  personal 
pronoun  I,  He  must  mean  by'  that  I  either 
the  finite  man  or  the  infinite  God.  I  believe 
the  Unitarian  is  right  in  saying  that  this 
personal  pronoun  I  always  refers  to  the  finite 
being  and  consciousness,  and  not  to  the  in- 
finite being. 

That  is  honest.  I  like  a  man  to  come 
right  out  and  say  what  he  thinks.  What  I 
wish  Professor  Swing  to  do  is  to  tell  us  what 
he  means.  You  will  not  find  as  clear  state- 
ments in  anything  he  has  written — not  a  sol- 
itary syllable  on  record  about  salvation,  re- 
generation, etc.,  to  which  Freeman  Clarke 
would  not  say  "amen." 

Read  his  statement  on  the  subject  of  the 
atonement  of  Christ,  for  James  Freeman 
Clarke  endorses  Horace  Bushnell's  view  of 
the  atonement.     Page  264  : 

In  conclusion  we  may  say  that  orthodoxy 
is  right  in  maintaining  that  Jesus  has,  by 
His  sufferings  and  jdeath,  brought  forgive- 
ness to  mankind,  not  by  propitiating  God  or 
appeasing  his  anger  ;  not  by  paying  our  debt 
or  removing  a  difficulty  in  the  Divine  mind; 
but  by  helping  us  to  see  that  the  love  of  God 
is  able  to  lift  us  out  of  our  sin,  and  present 
us  spotless  in  the  presence  of  His  glory  with 
exceeding  joy.  The  way  in  which  His  death 
produces  this  result  is  the  sympathy  with 
human  sinfulness  and  sorrow,  which  finds  in 
it  its  highest  expressions.  Those  whom  men 
cannot  forgive,  and  who  cannot  forgive 
themselves,  see  that  God,  speaking  through 
the  suflbrings  of  Jesus,  is  able  to  forgive 
them.  So  the  love  of  God  brings  them  to 
repentance,  and  those  who  were  afar  off  are 
made  nigh  by  the  blood  of  Christ. 

Professor  Swing  preaches  about  the  cross 
of  Christ,  and  says  that  Jesus  fulfilled  the 
law  we  have  broken,  but  he  has  said  nothing 
about  salvation  by  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ, 
that  James  Freeman  Clarke  and  Horace 
Bushnell  would  not  avow. 

I  hope  I  have  made  good  the  allegation 
in  the  specifications.  I  set  out  to  show  that 
Professor  Swing  does  not  make  any  unequiv- 
ocal statement  in  respect  to  certain  doctrines. 


PROF.  PATTON'S  ARGUMENT 


75 


I  have  challenged  con  trad ictiun.  I  liave 
read  his  sermons,  and  hopo  the  court  have, 
and  I  have  shown  that  his  statements,  so  far 
as  they  refer  to  these  doctrines,  are  all  capa- 
ble of  being  construed  in  a  Unitarian  sense. 
Do  not  the  quotations  from  James  Freeman 
Clarke  sustain  me  in  that  position  ? 

Now,  I  wish  this  question  to  go  home  to 
the  consciences  of  the  members  of  this  court. 
Are  you  willing  to  go  on  record  as  saying  that 
a  man  is  faithfully  maintaining  the  truths  of 
the  Gospel  of  whom  it  is  proved  that,  during 
the  course  of  his  public  ministrations,  or,  at  all 
events,  in  the  sermons  which  have  been  pub- 
lished over  his  name,  he  has  never  said  a  sol- 
itary syllable  to  set  him  oft'  from  the  Unita- 
rians, and  to  prove  that  he  believes  and  sets 
store  by,  and  is  willing  to  stake  his  life  upon, 
the  cardinal  doctrines  of  salvation  through 
the  propitiation  of  Jesus  Christ.  I  am  wil- 
ling to  believe  that  this  Presbytery  has  a 
sufiicient  regard  for  these  doctrines  to  pass 
no  such  vote  as  that,  much  as  it  loves  Pro- 
fessor Swing,  and  anxious  as  it  would  be  to 
see  him  acquitted  of  these  grave  charges. 
If  anything  is  true  it  is  true  that  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Deity  of  Christ  divides  the  log- 
ical world  into  two  hemispheres,  just  as  the 
equator  divides  this  earth.  And  are  you 
going  to  say  that  a  man  is  faithful  who  will 
allow  himself  to  be  claimed  by  men  who  car- 
ry on  their  banners  an  impeachment  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  to  be  claimed  with- 
out contradiction  ?  Do  you  consider  a  man 
faithful  to  his  ordination  vows  who  stands 
all  the  time  in  this  position  of  perpetual 
equinox,  always  crossing  the  line  and  never 
being  in  a  position  where  we  can  say  he  is  on 
one  side  or  the  other.  You  know  the  efi"ect, 
and  it  is  not  necessary  for  me  to  prove  it.  It 
would  be  an  insult  to  the  intelligence  of  the 
house  for  me  to  undertake  to  prove  that  grave 
doubts  have  existed  as  to  his  theological  po- 
sition. Hardlj'  a  daily  newspaper  but  affirms 
in  his  behalf  that  he  has  cast  away  the  old 
doctrines  upon  which  we  stake  our  faith,  and 
which  we  regard  as  vital.  Not  a  member  of 
the  Presbytery  but  has  been  troubled  with 
respect  to  his  doubtful  utterances  and  vague 
forms  of  expression.  As  long  ago  as  1867  a 
member  of  this  court,  an  intimate  friend  of 
Professor  Swing,  a  man  who  held  a  public 
position,  and  was  therefore  able  to  know 
something  in  reference  to  the  opinions  of 
his  brethren,  wrote  a  letter,  in  which  he 
said  : 


"  His  dubious  statements  cause  us  gre.-it 
trouble,  and  we  do  not  know  but  he  will 
force  the  Presbytery  to  bring  him  to  ac- 
count." 

A  man  whom  we  respect  as  much  as  Dr.  Pat- 
terson— a  man  who  has  stood  in  this  commu- 
nity as  a  representative  of  Presbyterianism, 
and  whose  opinion  is  of  value,  wrote  in  a  re- 
ligious newspaper,  over  his  own  name,  the 
following  words : 

"  Nor  do  I  appear  as  an  apologist  for  Pro- 
fessor Swing's  peculiar  style  of  preaching. 
So  far  as  he  avoids  a  clear  i^nd  unequivocal 
statement  of  the  central  doctrines  of  Ev- 
angelical Christianity,  his  preaching  seems 
to  me  seriously  defective." 

In  the  face  of  that  testimony,  and  in  the 
face  of  the  letter  written  by  Mr.  Trowbridge, 
and  offered  in  evidence,  and  in  the  face  of 
the  fact  that  Mr.  Young  testified  that  Mr. 
Swing  admitted  to  him  that  he  was  claimed 
by  the  Unitarians ;  and  the  further  fact  that 
Professor  Swing  admitted  on  the  floor  of  the 
Presbytery  that  he  was  claimed  by  the  Unita- 
rians, and  the  further  fact  that  Mr.  Thompson 
went  to  him  and  advised  him  that  it  would  be 
better  for  him  to  be  more  explicit,  and  re- 
monstrated with  him  in  respect  to  his  doubtful 
utterances,  I  ask  you  if  a  man  is  excusable 
for  being  silent  and  remaining  in  a  doubtful 
position  ?  "Was  it  not  his  duty  to  avow  him- 
self distinctly  ?  Have  we  not  a  right  to  in- 
terrogate him  as  to  his  particular  views  on 
these  questions  ?  I  shall  be  met  with  the  re- 
ply that  he  has  answered — that  he  has  satis- 
fied all  honest  doubt  and  .all  reasonable  in- 
quiry. 

Professor  Swing's  plea  was  just  a  reaffir- 
mation of  allegation  First,  to  wit :  That  he 
was  in  the  habit  of  using  vague  and  equivocal 
language  to  the  manifest  injury  of  his  repu- 
tation as  a  christian  minister,  and  to  the  in- 
jury of  the  cause  of  Christ.  What  does  that 
plea  mean  ?  I  listened  and  was  anxious  that 
something  should  be  said  by  him  which  would 
relieve  the  doubts  on  my  mind  which  have 
been  in  existence  for  months  past ;  but  when 
the  plea  was  concluded  I  felt  as  much  be- 
wildered as  ever.  If  I  ever  felt  I  had  a  rea- 
son to  carry  on  the  prosecution,  it  was  then ; 
if  I  ever  felt  that  the  Presbytery  should  be 
put  right  on  doctrinal  issues  ;  if  I  ever  felt 
that  the  Presbytery  had  responsible  duties  to 
discharge,  it  was  when  he  stood  upon  this 
floor  and  insulted  the  Presbyterian  church, 
and  said  he  had  departed  from  the  faith  of 


76 


THE  TIllAL  OF  EEV,  DAVID  SWING. 


tho  church,  and  undertook  to  lead  the  Pres- 
byterian church  to  a  Confession  of  Faith 
which  he  had  formed. 

I  will  now  examine  his  plea.  He  says 
there  are  "  certain  doctrines  upon  which  he 
is  willing  to  meet  the  skeptical  world,"  and 
he  names  them.  The  question  is  not  whether 
he  is  to  meet  the  skeptical  world  at  all. 
The  question  is  what  he  helieves.  He  has 
not  told  us.  It  will  be  alleged  by  his  friends 
that  that  was  meant  as  a  categorical  affirma- 
tion of  his  belief.  I  do  not  deny  that  it  was 
meant  for  that.  It  is  not  a  categorical  affir- 
mation of  his  belief,  nor  such  a  statement  as 
the  Presbytery  is  entitled  to  have.  But 
grant  that  it  is,  what  is  it?  What  are  the 
doctrines  ?  "  The  divinity  of  Christ  1  " 
What  does  he  mean  ?  Do  not  the  Univer- 
salists  believe  in  the  divinity  of  Christ  ? 
Do  not  the  Unitarians  believe  in  the  divinity 
of  Christ?  There  is  a  world  of  difference 
between  the  statement  "Christ  is  divine" 
and  the  statement  "  Christ  is  God."  If  he 
meant  that  he  believed  in  the  Deity  of  Christ, 
why  did  he  not  say  "I  believe  Jesus  Christ 
has  a  true  body  and  a  reasonable  soul  ?"  Why 
does  he  not  say  "  Jesus  Christ  is  God  and 
man  in  two  distinct  natures  and  persons?" 
That  is  what  we  want  to  know. 

I  come  now  to  the  subject  in  reference  to 
which  I  expressed  doubts  in  the  Interio7' 
newspaper,  of  which  the  world  has  heard  be- 
fore to-day. 

He  believes  in  the  "  Inspiration  of  the 
Scriptures."  Who  said  he  did  not?  But 
what  does  he  mean  by  that  ?  There  is  a  vast 
latitude  when  you  undertake  to  speak  about 
the  Inspiration  of  the  Scriptures.  His  "  in- 
S2:)iration  of  the  scriptures  "  must  be  defined 
by  what  he  has  said  about  the  Scriptures. 
When  I  come  to  that  portion  of  my  argu- 
ment I  shall  show  that  Prof.  Swing  has  made 
use  of  expressions  which,  if  they  indicate  his 
sentiments,  are  incompatible  with  the  belief 
in  that  plenary  Inspiration  of  the  Scriptures 
which  this  Presbyterj'  requires  as  necessary 
to  good  standing  in  the  Presbyterian  church  ; 
for  I  would  have  you  understand  that  Dr. 
Patterson  brought  in  a  report  upon  the  sub- 
ject and  the  Presbytery  has  committed  itself 
upon  the  plenary  Inspiration  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, and  you  cannot  condemn  Dr.  McKaig, 
of  the  Ninth  Church,  and  acquit  Professor 
Swing  at  the  same  time,  because  "  the  prin- 
ciple in  both  cases  is  the  same." 

Ho  says  he  believes  in  the  Trinity.     What 


does  he  mean  by  the  Trinity  ?  You  will  find 
that  James  Freeman  Clarke  speaks  of  the 
Trinity,  and  if  it  were  necessary  to  take  up 
the  time,  I  could  read  a  passage  in  which  he 
says  he  believes  in  the  Trinity,  paradoxical 
as  it  may  seem  ;  and  Plato  did,  and  tho  Hin- 
doos and  Sabellians  believe  in  a  sort  of  Trin- 
ity. I  want  to  know  if  Prof.  Swing  believes 
that  there  are  three  persons  in  the  Godhead, 
the  same  in  substance,  equal  in  power  and 
glory,  and  I  am  still  in  the  dark.  He  says  he 
believes  in  the  "mediation  of  Christ."  Dr. 
Eyder  believes  in  the  mediation  of  Ohrist, 
and  so  do  the  Uuiversalists.  •  I  want  to  know 
what  he  meant  when  he  said  "  I  believe  in 
Jesus  Christ  as  a  mediator." 

He  believes  in  the  final  separation  of  the 
wicked  and  the  good.  So  do  the  Universal- 
ists.  But  does  he  believe  in  everlasting  pun- 
ishment— a  judicial  act  inflicted  by  God  for 
the  subservance  of  His  own  glory,  as  that 
doctrine  is  taught  in  the  Confession  of 
Faith  ?  He  has  reviled  that  doctrine  and 
says  that,  as  it  is  taught  in  the  Confession  of 
Faith,  it  is  the  occasion  of  infidelity. 

I  will  now  read  James  Freeman  Clarke's 
opinion  of  eternal  punishment.  Pages  376 
and  377. 

Eternal  punishments  are  the  opposite  of 
temporal  punishments  ;  they  have  nothing  to 
do  with  time  at  all;  they  are  punishments 
outside  of  time.  *  *  *  Eternal  punish- 
ment, then,  is  the  repugnance  to  God  of  the 
soul  which  is  inwardly  selfish  in  its  will — 
loving  itself  more  than  truth  and  right.  It 
is  the  sense  of  indignation  and  wrath,  alien- 
ation and  poverty,  which  rests  on  it  while  in 
this  condition.  It  is  the  outer  darkness  ;  it 
is  the  far  country ;  it  is  the  famine  which 
comes  to  us  as  a  holy  and  blessed  evil  sent  to 
save  by  bringing  to  repentance  the  prodigal 
child  who  has  not  yet  come  to  himself. 

Take  the  Confession  of  Faith  which  Prof. 
Swing  wishes  to  be  regarded  as  the  platform 
of  the  Presbyterian  church,  and  go  around 
with  it,  and  you  could  get  the  signature  of 
every  Unitarian  in  the  land  who  holds  to 
the  high  Arian  views — get  that  of  every 
Universalist  in  the  land  who  holds  to  the 
"new  departure  "  in  Universalism. 

But  Prof.  Swing  says  he  holds  these  doc- 
trines in  their  "  evangelical  sense."  What 
is  understood  by  "evangelical?"  Do  not  the 
Unitarians  claim  to  be  evangelical  ?  Do 
they  not  consider  it  a  piece  of  impertinence 
on  the  part  of  Presbyterians,  and  Episcopa- 
lians, and  Baptists,  and  Methodists  to  arro- 
gate the  exclusive  title  of  "  Evangelical?"  Is 
it  not  a  matter  of  knowledge  that   the   Inde- 


rilOF.  PATTON'S  ARGUMENT. 


77 


pendent  hns  been  tryintj  to  prove  that  the 
Univcrsalists  are  evangelical?  Says  Dr. 
Kyder : 

Do  we  then  ask  to  bo  regarclcd  as  evangel- 
ical ?  Most  assuredly  we  do.  For  that  is 
■what  we  are.  We  ask  to  .stand  where  we 
belong.  "We  are  part  of  the  history  of  the 
Church  of  Christ — no  outside  party — no  re- 
ligious parasite,  but  a  vital  element  of  the 
spiritual  body  of  our  Lord.  True,  Ave  hold 
some  views  peculiar  to  ourselves.  If  this 
were  not  so  we  should  not  be  a  Christian  sect 
at  all.  And  the  same  may  also  be  said  of 
every  Christian  denomination.  But  this 
peculiarity  of  faith,  these  "  differences  of  ad- 
ministration," do  not  rightly  enter  into  this 
discussion  at  ail,  for  we  are  not  talking  about 
denominational  fellowship,  but  Christian 
fellowship. 

Prof.  Swing  says  he  holds  the  doctrines  in 
their  evangelical  import.  I  do  not  know 
what  that  means.  The  question  is  not 
whether  he  holds  them  in  their  evangelical 
sense,  but  whether  he  holds  them  as  they  are 
formulated  in  the  Westminster  Confession  of 
Faith.  I  say  that  he  has  not  taught  these 
doctrines,  that  he  has  equivocated,  and  I 
leave  it  for  the  Presbytery  to  say  whether  he 
has  been  faithful  in  so  far  as  he  has  omitted 
to  give  distinct  and  pi'onounced  utterance 
upon  these  subjects. 

The  first  and  second  specifications  are  so 
nearly  alike  that  it  is  not  necessary  for  me  to 
pay  any  attention  to  the  second,  as  I  have 
quoted  it  in  the  course  of  my  remarks. 

1  shall  now  read  a  few  passages  without 
comment,  from  the  Chicago  Pulpit  to  illus- 
trate the  first  specification  with  reference  to 
his  equivocations.  In  the  sermons  on  "A  Re- 
ligion of  Words,''  and  "  The  Value  of  Yes- 
terday," we  read  : 

The  good  deeds  of  yesterday,  the  good 
deeds  of  to-day,  the  perfected  goodness  of  the 
morrow,  a  deep  love  for  man,  a  consciousness 
of  the  presence  of  God,  will  fill  the  whole 
face  with  a  nobleness  and  happiness  to  which 
earth  has  thus  far  been  willingly  a  stranger. 
This  will  be  a  salvation,  and  Christ  will  be  a 
Saviour. 

The  whole  issue  with  respect  to  the 
vicarious  sacrifice  of  Christ  is,  did  Christ 
die  for  the  sake  of  men,  or  for  the  sake  of 
their  sins. 

I  will  now  read  a  passage  which  one  of  the 
witnesses  cited  as  teaching  the  doctrine  of 
future  punishment. 

But  amid  all  the  fluctuations  of  patriotism, 
the  law  of  death  for  treason  yet  remains  writ- 
ten upon  the  book  of  nations.  And  so  in 
Christianitj'.  However  any  class  or  any  age 
may  rise  above  the  influence  of  penalty  for 
sin,  yet  punishment  remains  a  perpetual  fact 


in  its  economy  of  our  God.  Its  dark  cloud 
will  rise  or  hill,  according  to  the  quality  of 
humanity.  Wherever  there  are  hearts  'thato 
can  see  no  goodness  in  holiness,  none  in 
honesty,  and  in  charity,  none  in  Jesus  Christ, 
none  in  the  worship  of'  God  ;  wherever  there 
are  minds  incapable  of  being  led  by  tlie  in- 
trinsic good  of  religion,  then  this  dark  cloud 
of  divine  wrath  is  ready  to  descend  and  to 
cnveloj)  with  its  thunders  the  .soul  that  can- 
not and  will  not  be  enveloped  by  love.  The 
result  of  sin,  expressed  in  all  religions  by  the 
word  hell,  is  a  pc;ri)etual  influence,  liable  to 
go  and  come  as  humanity  advances  or  retreats 
in  the  path  of  intelligence  and  morals— but 
it  nuist  bo  a  i)erpetual  fact  in  a  world  of 
beings  cajiable  of  being  immortal.  A  world 
of  sin  must  be  a  world  of  punishment. 

Any  Unitarian  could  say  that.  The  wit- 
ness stopped  there,  but  I  will  go  on : 

In  days  when  men  cannot  whip  their  chil- 
dren, in  daj-s  when  men  are  arrested  for  cru- 
elty to  dumb  beasts,  in  days  when  we  teach 
our  children  beautiful  hymns,  and  when  we 
reward  them  for  any  act  of  goodness,  in  daj-s 
when  there  are  homes  for  the  friendless  and 
for  the  fallen,  and  millions  are  poured  out 
for  colleges  where  anybody  can  learn  any 
science  or  art  without  charge,  in  days 
when  a  child  need  not  be  a  beggar,  in  days 
in  which  Russia  and  America  are  fresh  in 
the  glory  wreaths  of  having  set  free  60,- 
000,000  of  slaves,  it  can  hardly  be  expected 
that  the  pulpit,  ignoring  this  grand  uprising 
of  tenderness,  will  daily  point  the  horrors 
of  perdition  while  the  very  street  is  being 
enchanted  by  this  vision  of  love.  Oh  what 
a  betrayal  this  would  be  of  the  pulpit's 
trust  I 

In  a  sermon  entitled  "The  Value  of  Yes- 
terday," published  in  the  Chicago  Pulpit,  he 
says  : 

Yesterday  is  full  of  past  usefulness,  and  of 
its  ways  and  means,  full  of  tears  and  their 
causes  and  cures.  In  that  shadowy  domain 
there  stands  the  cross,  and  there  is  the 
Saviour  dying  for  the  vast  myriads  of  a  race. 

Whether  that  is  evangelical  depends  upon 
what  is  meant  by  "dying  for  the  vast  myriads 
of  a  race." 

In  his  sermon  on  "Salvation  and  Morali- 
ty," in  which  he  brings  out  the  idea  I  am 
speaking  of,  that  the  use  of  orthodox  words 
does  not  necessarily  convey  an  orthodox 
meaning,  since  words  have  more  than  one 
meaning,  he  says : 

In  this  shadowy  realm  we  would  not  wish 
to  throw  down  the  vast  response  that  "he 
that  believes"  shall  safely  pass  the  mysteri- 
ous bourne ;  for  faith  is  such  a  broad,  inde- 
finable word  that  to  substitute  it  for  the 
term  salvation  would  be  to  leave  us  still  in 
the  air,  obscure.  Faith  in  Christ  would  be  a 
phrase  still  more  indefinite,  for  not  only  has 
faith  many  forms,  but  many  forms  also  at- 
tach to  the  person  of  Christ.  He  was  a  sacri- 


78 


THE  TRIAL  OF  REV.  DAVID  SWING. 


fice,  but  sacrifice  has  many  significations.  He 
•was  an  example.  He  was  a  mediator.  He 
was  an  unfolding  of  the  divine  image.  Faith 
in  Christ  is  a  phrase  which  is  at  once  seen 
to  be  made  of  words  that  are  like  the  bits  of 
colored  glass  in  the  kaleidoscope,  forming 
manj-  pictures  and  all  very  beautiful. 

The  following  passage  was  quoted  by  one 
of  the  witnesses  for  the  defense,  to  prove 
that  Professor  Swing  believes  in  eternal  pun- 
ishment : 

There  is  a  Christianity  that  will  save  the 
world.  It  has  not  only  a  faith,  but  it  has  a 
morality  as  essential  as  its  faith.  It  not 
only  says  "believe  and  be  saved,"  but  it  as- 
signs damnation  to  him  who  leads  a  wicked 
life.  There  is  a  Christianity  that  will  not 
only  fill  heaven  with  saints,  but  earth  with 
good  citizens.  In  it  Paul  and  Christ  are  not 
rudely  separated,  and  the  human  placed 
above  the  divine,  but  the  morals  of  the  gos- 
pels come  back  to  mankind,  and  the  anxiety 
for  faith  is  no  greater  than  the  hungering 
after  righteousness. 

Damnation,  according  to  him,  simply 
means  the  natural  consequence  of  sin.  If  a 
man  sins  he  suflers  :  that  is  "damnation." 

In  his  sermon  on  "Soul  Culture,"  page 
137,  he  says : 

To  live  a  life  amid  such  surroundings  as 
earth  now  possesses,  must  be  to  live  a  career 
of  preparation  for  a  world  more  blessed.  To 
lose  one's  soul  must  be  to  pass  through  this 
sublime  temple  without  drinking  in  its  vir- 
tue and  holy  worship,  and  not  only  to  have 
rejected  the  true,  but  to  have  suffered  the 
falsehoods  of  society  to  rush  upon  the  deli- 
cately strung  harp  of  the  spirit  and  break  its 
strings  and  hush  its  melodies. 

That  lets  a  little  light  in  on  what  he  be- 
lieves concerning  future  punishment.  He 
may  hold  that "  He  that  believeth  not  shall  be 
damned ;"  but  that  is  a  very  rose-water  way 
of  putting  it. 

I  now  come  to  the  third  [specification.  A 
great  deal  has  been  said  about  this  specifica- 
tion. Brother  Riddle  wanted  to  demur  be- 
fore he  had  a  chance  to.  He  is  a  lawyer  and 
I  am  the  more  surprised  that  he  should  do  it. 
He  wanted  to  strike  out  the  specification  be- 
cause he  did  not  believe  in  saying  anything 
about  a  man  that  was  dead.  That  is  a  good 
maxim  on  general  principles,  but  it  did  not 
satisfy  the  court ;  so  the  specification  stands 
as  written.  This  specification  has  reference 
to  three  facts,  and  if  the  facts  are  admitted, 
the  simple  question  is  as  to  their  criminality : 
The  first  is  the  delivery  of  a  lecture  in  the 
Mary  Price  Collier  chapel ;  second,  the  pub- 
lication of  a  sentiment  in  the  Lakeside 
Monthly,  and  the  third,  the  preaching  of  a 
sermon   in   eulogy  of  John   Stuart   Mill.     I 


am  sure,  Mr.  Moderator,  that  if  any  Unita- 
rians are  present  they  will  not  regard  my 
zeal  for  the  points  of  difference  which  sepa- 
rate me  from  them,  as  an  indication  of  un- 
kind feeling  toward  that  denomination.  If 
they  are  honest  men,  they  will  say,  You  and 
I  differ  decidedly — because,  between  the  po- 
sition of  Christ  as  a  creature  and  Christ  as  a 
God,  the  difference  is  infinite.  Believing 
that  Christ  is  God,  I  cannot  consent  to  have 
Him  put  upon  a  lower  platform,  and  to  be 
regarded  as  a  creature,  without  entering  my 
protest.  I  believe  that  the  Atonement  de- 
rives its  efficacy  from  the  fact  that  He  is  in- 
finite, and  that  His  sufierings  were  sufficient 
for  the  world.  If  then  you  take  away 
from  me  the  deity  of  Christ,  I  shall  say  you 
have  taken  away  my  Lord,  and  I  know  not 
where  you  have  laid  Him. 

I  appreciate  the  character  of  the  Unita- 
rians. I  appreciate  their  scholarship,  and  I 
am  as  willing  as  any  one  to  admit  and  to  rec- 
ognize the  services  which  they  have  rendered 
the  cause  of  Truth  in  certain  departments  of 
theological  investigation.  I  am  not  unmind- 
ful of  the  labors  of  Lardner  in  the  old  coun- 
try, or  of  Norton  in  this.  But  we  believe 
that  Jesus  Christ  is  God.  We  believe  that, 
being  God,  He  became  man.  We  derive  our 
hope  of  heaven  from  the  union  of  these  two 
facts.  From  the  fact  that  He  was  man  we 
believe  that  He  could  be  in  sympathy  with 
us,  take  our  low  place,  satisfy  the  demands 
of  that  law,  and  provide  the  way  whereby  God 
could  be  just  and  justify  the  ungodly.  We 
believe  that,  being  God,  His  sacrifice  was  of 
infinite  value,  and  that  God,  looking  upon  it, 
could  regard  it  as  standing  in  the  place  of 
His  people. 

To  deny  the  deity  of  Christ  is  to  deny  the 
vicarious  character  of  Christ's  death;  is  to 
affirm  that  we  are  saved  on  some  other 
ground  than  the  propitiation  of  His  cross,  in 
His  offering  Himself  to  satisfy  divine  justice. 
Part  company  with  the  deity  of  Christ, 
and  you  preach  another  gospel  altogether. 
The  Unitarians  know  that,  and  they  are  hon- 
est in  their  position  as  I  am  honest  in  mine. 

Now  then,  if  we  are  agreed  on  these  pre- 
mises let  us  go  on  to  criticise  the  conduct  of 
Professor  Swing. 

I  am  going  to  use  an  illustration,  and  I 
hope  I  shall  not  be  represented  to-morrow 
morning  as  having  compared  the  Unitarians 
with  Atheists,  because  I  am  not  going  to  do 
it.     But  suppose  an  Atheistic  society  were  to 


PROF.  PATTON'S  ARGUMENT. 


organize,  and  were  to  propose  the  erection  of 
a  hall ;  and  suppose  that  they  were  to  dedi- 
cate that  hall  to  a  deceased  friend  of  mine — 
a  noble  christian — and  that  they  should  come 
to  me  and  say  this  :  "  We  are  going  to  build 
this  hall,  and  we  are  going  to  dedicate  it  to 
your  friend  and  our  friend,  and  we  want  you 
to  deliver  a  lecture.  We  are  short  of  funds, 
and  you  are  popular  "  (of  course  they 
would  not  say  that  to  me.)  "and  we 
want  you  to  deliver  a  lecture  now  and  help 
us  out."  Mr.  Moderator,  I  would  like  to 
have  your  ruling  on  this  question.  If  I 
were  to  plead  the  fact  that  this  atheistic  hall 
was  to  be  erected  in  memory  of  a  deceased 
friend  for  whom  I  had  the  highest  regard, 
and  whose  christian  character  was  beyond 
reproach,  would  that  be  an  excuse  for  lending 
my  name  and  influence  to  a  society  of 
atheists?  I  will  not  wait  for  your  decision. 
I  know  what  it  will  be. 

If  it  was  wrong  for  Prof.  Swing  to  give 
his  name  and  influence  to  Unitarianism,  it 
was  not  the  less  wrong  because  the  society  in 
whose  behalf  he  lectured  were  about  to  erect 
a  chapel  in  memory  of  a  woman  whom  he 
admired,  and  whose  christian  character  has 
never  been  in  dispute.  So  that  the  question 
reverts  to  the  naked  issue,  whether  it  is  right 
for  a  Presbyterian  minister,  with  the  vows  of 
a  Presbyterian  minister  upon  him,  and  hav- 
ing promised  to  be  faithful  and  zealous  in 
maintaining  the  truths  of  the  gospel,  to  give 
his  public  influence,  to  have  his  name  associ- 
ated from  day  to  day  in  the  public  press, 
with  an  enterprise  which  has  for 
its  sole  object  the  erection  of  a  chapel 
in  which  the  only  gospel  preached, 
would  be  a  gospel  deriding  the  deity  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  calling  in  ques- 
tion His  co-eternity  with  the  Father.  Is 
it  right?  That  is  the  question.  I  will  take 
the  responsibility  of  anticipating  the  vote  of 
this  body.  There  is  my  brother  Glen  Wood, 
who  represents  the  American  Tract  Society, 
and  it  is  a  very  good  society,  and  I  am  going 
to  ask  him  whether  he  would  consider  him- 
self as  in  the  discharge  of  the  duties  of  his 
office,  if  he  were  to  put  a  Unitarian  Tract, 
or  a  bundle  of  Unitarian  Tracts,  into  a  col- 
porteur's hands?  Would  he  be  willing  to 
allow  an  agent  of  the  American  Tract  Society 
to  go  into  the  households  of  this  land  carry- 
ing with  him  tracts  which  certify  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  not  God,  which  teach  that  the  doc- 
trine  of  the   Trinity   as   laid   down  in  our 


79 

standards  is  not  true,  which  affirm  that  wo 
are  saved  in  some  other  way  than  that  of  pro- 
pitiation through  the  blood  of  Christ?  Ho 
would  not  do  it.  Now,  I  wish  to  know  of 
the  members  of  this  court  whether  they  con- 
sider that  a  minister  of  this  Presbytery  and 
the  Presbyterian  church  is  acting  in  accord- 
ance with  his  ordination  vows  when  he  gives 
his  moral  support  to  a  society  who  have  no 
other  reason  for  their  separate  existence,  as  an 
organization,  than  the  fact  that  they  deny  the 
Trinity  and  the  deity  of  our  blessed  Lord. 
You  must  meet  that  question,  brethren,  with 
a  categorical  answer,  because  upon  your  re- 
ply to  it  your  vote  will  depend. 

Now  Prof.  Swing  can  meet  that.  He  will 
answer  that  (juestiun,  but  he  will  not  answer 
it  as  you  will,  and  he  will  vindicate  himself 
with  a  boldness  which  you  will  not  follow. 
You  may  acquit  him  of  the  charge.  You 
may  say  this  is  not  wrong  ;  but  you  will  do 
so  in  defiance  of  conscience,  and  you  will  not 
take  the  position  which  he  affirmed  in  his 
plea,  to  wit :  that  "the  Unitarians  have  a 
version  of  the  gospel  which  is  not  so  good  as 
ours."  That  is  his  position.  His  position  ia 
that  the  Unitarians  preach  the  gospel,  and, 
preaching  the  gospel,  he  can  very  consis- 
tently maintain  the  position  that  it  is  right  for 
him  to  exchange  courtesies  of  this  kind.  But 
we,  planting  ourselves  upon  the  position  that 
the  gospel  is  identified  with  the  royalty  of 
Jesus  Christ  and  the  Trinity,  cannot  take 
that  position.  It  is  a  very  difierent  thing. 
Now,  sir,  I  should  like  to  see  how  Prof. 
Swing  would  go  about  the  conversion  of  a 
Unitarian  after  what  he  has  said  here. 
There  is  not  a  minister  in  this  house,  not  an 
elder  in  this  house,  who,  if  he  knew  that 
some,  dear  friend  did  not  believe  in  the  deity 
of  Jesus,  and  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity, 
would  not  feel  that  his  soul  was  imperilled. 
Mr.  Moderator,  if  you  knew  that  a  member 
of  your  church  had  any  doubt  about  the  deity 
of  Christ,  I  venture  to  affirm  that  you  would 
consider  that  he  was  in  serious  peril.  Gen- 
tlemen of  the  Presbytery,  if  you  knew  any 
member  of  your  congregations  had  denied  the 
deity  of  Christ  you  would  not  admit  him  to  your 
communion  table.  It  is  very  questionable  if 
you  would.  If  you  knew  it  you  would  tell 
him  that,  in  your  view,  a  man  could  not  be 
saved  who  denied  this  great  verity  of  our 
sacred  religion.  But  that  is  not  Prof.  Swing's 
position  at  all.  Prof.  Swing  says'  "  I  do  not 
believe  this.     I  do  not  regard   the  deity  of 


80 


THE  TEIAL  OP  EEV.  DAVID  SWING. 


Christ  essential  to  salvation."  He  plants 
himself  upon  the  broad  platform  of  Christian 
charity,  and,  while  he  admits  that  we  have 
"a  better  version  of  the  gospel"  than  the 
Unitarians,  he  affirms,  in  that  admission,  that 
they  have  a  gospel.  I  take  issue  with  him, 
with  all  respect  to  the  Unitarians,  upon  that 
point.  Now,  Mr.  Moderator,  how  could 
Prof.  Swing  go  to  his  Unitarian  friend  and 
say  "  my  dear  friend,  your  soul  is  in  peril ; 
you  must  believe  in  the  deity  of  Christ."  He 
could  not  do  it.  If  we  hold  the  views  we  are 
supposed  to  hold,  we  cannot  acquit  Prof. 
Swing  of  the  charge  of  unfaithfulness  after 
what  he  has  said  on  the  floor  of  this  house, 
and  after  his  public  act  of  fellowship  with 
Unitarians,  and  after  having  given  them  his 
moral  support.  I  make  that  issue  fairly  and 
squarely,  and  I  ask  this  house  to  meet  it. 

Now  I  pass  to  the  passage  referred  to  in 
the  Lakeside  Monthly.  Professor  Swing  has 
been  comparing  Chicago  with  other  cities, 
and  that  in  a  religious  point  of  view.  He 
■notes  the  points  of  diiference  which  distin- 
guish it  from  St,  Louis,  Pittsburg  and  others, 
and  says  : 

It  appears  that,  not  only  in  Arabian  dream 
but  that  in  reality,  there  is  a  genius  of  each 
place  holding  an  invisible  wand  that  touches 
every  heart.  A  Quaker  influence  presides 
over  Philadelphia ;  a  Calvinistic  Hercules 
holds  Pittsburgh  in  great  subjection ;  St. 
Louis  is  penetrated  by  a  devotion  to  the 
Mosaic  age,  because  of  its  tender  regard  for 
slaverj'  displayed  by  the  old  law-giver  ;  and 
thus  onward,  until  each  city  may  be  seen  to 
lie  under  a  powerful  enchantment  peculiar 
to  itself.  Chicago  is  an  attempt  at  evangel- 
ism. All  the  details  of  the  creeds  between 
Jerusalem  and  Geneva  seem  forgotten.  It  has 
been  driven  to  what  is  called  a  practical  gos- 
pel— driven  by  its  multitudes,  that  need  vir- 
tue more  than  theology,  and  driven  by  the 
failure  of  didactic  theology  elsewhere.'  It  en- 
joys the  advantage  of  past  public  experience. 
The  Episcopal  churches  here  are  full  of  Cal- 
vinists  whose  heads  never  received  the  Bish- 
op's blessing  in  regular  line  ;  and  the  com- 
mon meeting-houses  are  full  of  those  who 
were  once  confirmed  in  the  holy  Apostolic 
Church.  The  Pvoman  Catholic  children 
crowd  our  free  schools  here  ;  and  the  bishop 
himself  cannot  see  that  they  absorb  Bible 
enough  to  work  any  moral  injury  to  the  lit- 
tle souls.  All  the  way  from  Kobert  Collyer 
to  Kobert  Patterson  the  preaching  is  prac- 
tical, free  from  sectarianism,  full  of  persua- 
sion through  love.  What  sect  is  honored  by 
the  membership  of  Farwell  or  Moody,  few 
know,  because  all  names  are  forgotten  in  the 
more  general  title  of  Christian.  The  city 
being  the  halting-place  of  a  great  army  of 
business  men,  and  not  of  pilgrims  seeking  a 


blinking  Madonna,  the  local  gospel  was  com- 
pelled to  become  a  mode  of  virtue,  rather 
than  a  jumble  of  doctrines. 

I  do  not  think  that  Dr.  Patterson  considers 
it  any  great  compliment  to  be  put  into  the 
same  catagory  with  Eobert  Collyer,  and  be 
regarded  with  him  as  preaching  the  same 
gospel,  because  I  know  that  Dr.  Patterson's 
theology  is  the  antipodes  of  Eobert  CoUyer's, 
and  so  do  you.  If  this  means  anything — and 
we  are  not  going  to  be  driven  to  any  fine 
points  of  interpretation  as  to  what  it  may 
mean,  and  as  to  what  possible  construction 
may  be  put  upon  it — I  ask  you  as  intelligent 
men  and  ministers,  what  impression  this 
would  produce  upon  your  minds,  because  it 
is  a  principle  that  a  man  is  conclusively  pre- 
sumed to  intend  the  natural  and  probable 
consequences  of  his  acts, — what  would  be  the 
natural  and  probable  consequences  of  this  ar- 
ticle ?  What  would  be  the  effect  upon  the 
mind  of  anj'  unbiased  reader  ?  If  you  had 
never  heard  of  Prof.  Swing  would  you  think 
he  was  a  Presbj'terian  ?  Does  this  passage 
mean  anything  else,  or  could  it  produce  any- 
other  impression,  than  that  Dr.  Patterson  and 
Mr.  Collyer,  though  standing  apart,  were 
inside  the  circle  which  we  call  the  Gospel  ? 
With  all  respect  to  Eobert  Collyer,  and  with 
all  respect  to  the  denomination  which  he  re- 
presents, if  my  gospel  is  the  gospel,  then,  sir, 
there  is  no  other.  If  I  read  the  Bible  rightly, 
sir,  there  is  only  one  Gospel,  and  I  do  not 
know  anything  about  a  "  local  gospel."  The 
idea  which  Prof.  Swing  teaches  in  this 
passage  is  that  Eobert  Collyer's  gospel  and 
my  gospel  are  the  same,  and  I  resent  it  as  an 
insult.  It  is  not  so.  "  The  local  gospel  was 
compelled  to  become  a  mode  of  virtue,  rather 
than  a  jumble  of  doctrines."  What  is  the 
fair  implication  ?  Why,  sir,  he  is  comparing 
Chicago  with  other  cities  ;  he  says  that  the 
gospel  of  Chicago  is  a  little  different  from  the 
gospel  of  other  cities, — that  the  peculiar  fea- 
ture of  it  is  that  it  is  "a  mode  of  virtue."  Is 
that  your  understanding  of  the  Gospel  ?  Is 
the  Gospel  "  a  mode  of  virtue  ?"  Does  Chris- 
tianity differ  from  the  teachings  of  Socrates 
and  Marcus  Aurelius  only  in  the  fact  that  it 
teaches  a  better  virtue  ?  Is  that  the  thing 
which  differentiates  the  Christian  system? 
Not  as  I  take  it.  I  take  it  that  the  distin- 
guishing feature  of  the  Christian  system  is 
the  expiatory  death  of  Jesus  Christ  and  not 
"  a  mode  of  virtue."  But  Prof.  Swing's  Gos- 
pel is  "  a  mode  of  virtue,"  and  it  differs  from 


PEOF.  rATTo:>!'S  AllGUMENT. 


81 


the  gospel  of  Philadelphia,  and  of  St.  Louis, 
and  of  Pittsburgh,  in  the  fact  that  it  is  "  a 
mode  of  virtue  and  not  a  jumble  of  doctrines." 
"What  is  the  fair  implication  ?  "Why,  that  the 
gospel  of  Pittsburgh  andSt.  Louis  is"a  jumble 
of  doctrines,"  that  that  city  which  is  held  in 
the  grasp  of  a  "  Calvinistic  Hercules"  has  a 
gospel  which  amounts  to  "a  jumble  of  doc- 
trines." Is  that  a  kind  thing  to  say  of  a  city 
which  has  so  much  Presby terianism  in  it  ? 
Is  a  man  acting  in  strict  loyalty  to  the 
church  under  whose  banner  he  professes  to 
live  when  he  makes  this  rash  and  false  state- 
ment with  reference  to  the  Pittsburgh 
religion  ? 

I  now  pass  to  the  sermon  written  in  eulo- 
gy of  John  Stuart  Mill,  and  printed  in  the 
Chicago  Tribune  of  May  19,  1873.  Some  of 
you  know  something  about  John  Stuart  Mill, 
and  what  I  shall  say  will  not  be  by  way  of 
information,  but  simply  to  furnish  the  basis 
on  which  this  argument  is  to  proceed.  We 
know  that  John  Stuart  ]\Iill  grew  up  with- 
out any  religious  convictions  whatever.  "We 
know  that  particular  pains  were  taken  in  his 
education  that  he  should  have  no  religious 
impressions,  and  when  he  grew  up  he  es- 
poused a  philosophy  that  was  fatal  to  all  re- 
ligion ;  and  yet,  when  he  dies,  Prof.  Swing 
goes  into  his  pulpit,  and  on  Sunday  morning 
preaches  a  sermon  in  reference  to  him,  tak- 
ing as  a  text  I.  Corinthians,  15  and  41. 
"One  star  differeth  from  another  star  in 
glory."     I  will  quote  a  passage  : 

After  Solomon  had  exhausted  his  maxims, 
Christ  came,  saying.  Blessed  are  the  pure  in 
heart,  the  merciful,  the  peacemakers.  And 
then  Paul  comes  with  many  a  chapter  of 
summing  up  of  human  virtues  attainable  in 
this  life.  The  reader  of  the  Bible  will  see 
that  character  is  the  object  of  all  these  earth- 
ly years,  the  thing  to  be  sought  by  all  alike 
from  King  to  subject,  from  philosopher  to 
child.  Such  being  the  life-work  of  man,  he 
may  well  gaze  upon  any  beauty  and  impres- 
eiveness  of  character,  come  whence  it  may, 
in  politics  or  philosophy,  or  in  the  humblest 
walks  of  earth.  Even  if  Stuart  Mill  stood 
nominally  outside  of  the  Christian  religion, 
yet  there  is  a  sense  in  which  he  stood,  not  by 
choice,  but  by  necessity,  within  the  bounda- 
ries of  the  New  Testament.  It  is  within  the 
power  of  an  individual  to  reject  the  special 
doctrines  of  a  religion ;  bat  if  that  religion 
has  moulded  his  country  for  centuries  in  all 
its  morals  and  aspirations,  then  each  indi- 
vidual born  into  that  atmosphere  is  colored 
with  its  hues,  however  much  he  may  repu- 
diate its  cardinal  dogmas  in  after  life.  It  is 
possible  for  a  free  will  to  expatriate  one's 
self  from  one's  country,  but  go   where   he 


may,  he  will  always  be  the  Englishman  or 
American  of  his  formative  years.  Lady 
Hester  Stanhope  tried  to  escape  her  country, 
weary  as  she  was  of  its  political  griefs,  but 
in  the  mountains  of  Lebanon,  in  Arab  dress, 
and  with  only  Arabs  around  her,  she  was  still 
only  an  Englishwoman.  In  Christian  lands 
Christianity,  besides  being  a  set  of  dogmas, 
is  also  an  atmosphere,  and  hence  those  who 
at  last  feel  called  upon  to  deny  the  proposi- 
tions most  difficult  of  belief  continue  still  the 
children  of  the  place,  and  if  they  do  not 
carry  the  public  baptism  upon  their  fore- 
heads, they  bear  the  Christian  character  in 
their  heart.  Hence,  to  find  a  beautiful  char- 
acter outside  the  Christian  Church  may  yet 
be  to  lind  a  good  illustration  of  Christian 
ideal  and  Christian  destiny,  for  the  ideal  be- 
comes a  public  inheritance,  and  Hows  beyond 
the  walls  of  the  church,  as  the  light  oi'  the 
cottager's  lamp  pours  out  of  the  window,  far 
away  from  the  loved  family  group.  Of  this 
eminent  man  a  prominent  passion  was  his 
lave  of  truth.  To  know  the  facts  in  the 
common  affairs  of  life  was  so  deep  a  wish  in 
his  soul  that  it  became  a  passion  so  strong 
that  all  other  passions  died  around  it  as  the 
shrubs  of  the  forest  die  when  the  oak  begins 
to  overshadow  them.  In  his  writings  we 
perceive  a  heart  without  enmity,  without 
partizanship,  moving  along  in  the  vast  sea 
of  truth,  occupied  wholly  in  search  of  a 
shore  habitable  by  the  pilgrim  humanity. 
One  of  our  own  leading  statesmen,  having 
been  asked  why  he  never  became  angry,  re- 
plied that  he  could  not  afford  it.  Life  was 
too  short  to  be  consumed  in  part  by  such  a 
passion. 

Mr.  Mill's  style  is  the  picture  of  a  sincere 
intellect  from  which  all  malice  had  been 
eliminated,  all  language  of  abuse,  and  into 
which  had  been  gatliered  the  breadth  of  a 
Plato,  the  learning  of  a  Milton,  and  the  hu- 
manity of  a  Wilberforce.  In  the  careers  of 
such  gifted  men  as  Theodore  Parker  and 
Charles  Sumner,  there  is  so  much  partizan- 
ship and  individual  pride  that  the  pursuit  of 
truth  with  them  seems  too  much  like  a  con- 
test for  office  or  fame.  The  heart  that  reads 
these'  writings  has  at  last  such  feelings  as 
must  have  filled  the  bosoms  of  the  Romans 
seated  at  their  gladiatorial  shows,  but  read- 
ing Stuart  Mill  you  feel  that  the  light 
around  you  is  not  that  of  lightning,  but  of  a 
morning  sun  shining  not  as  any  terror,  but 
in  benevolence. 

If,  therefore,  the  Bible  speaks  of  truthful- 
ness; if  Solomon  declared  the  glory  of  just 
balances  ;  if  the  gospels  speak  of  our  being 
without  guile;  if  another  sacred  writer  said, 
"He  that"  would  see  good  days  let  him  refrain 
his  tongue  from  evil  and  his  lips  that  they 
speak  no  guile,"  we  may  call  to  memory 
this  Ensjlish  name  and  know  what  all  this 
Scripture  signified. 

Mark  this  sentence  and  remember  John 
Stuart  Mill  was  an  athei&t,  and  by  that  I  do 
not  mean  that  he  had  succeeded  in  proving 
that  there  is  no  God,  but  I  mean  that  he  did 


82 


TUE  TillAL  OF  REV.  DAVID  SAVING. 


not  believe  in  a  pergonal  God.  "When  I  use 
the  word  atheist  it  is  with  that  definition  ; 
and  using  the  -word  in  this  sense  John  Stuart 
Mill,  so  far  as  we  have  any  knowledge  of 
his  belief,  was  an  atheist. 

Even  if  John  Stuart  Mill  stood  nominally 
outside  of  the  Chri.stian  religion,  yet  there 
is  a  sense  in  which  he  stood,  not  by  choice 
but  by  necessity,  within  the  boundaries  of 
the  New  Testament. 

But  there  is  no  perfection  upon  these 
shores.  And  now  we  come  to  the  shadow 
that  falls  across  this  grave  by  day  and  night. 
That  Mr.  Mill  did  not  accept  the  orthodox 
creed,  is  not  what  a  liberal  world  need  regret 
the  most,  but  that  he  revealed  little  of  the 
religious  sentiment  and  hope  is  what  we  must 
confess  to  be  a  shadow  upon  his  memory. 

I  do  not  know  what  else  they  need  regret. 
If  salvation  through  the  blood  of  Christ  is 
not  the  great  want — the  great  fact,  and  the 
recognition  of  it  the  great  need — then  I  do 
not  understand  the  Gospel  as  Professor  Swing 
does.  And  yet  he  says,  "  The  fact  that  he 
(Mill)  did  not  accept  the  orthodox  creed  is 
not  what  a  liberal  world  need  regret  the 
most."  What  need  they  regret?  "That  he 
revealed  little  of  the  religious  sentiment  is 
what  we  must  confess  to  be  a  shadow  upon  his 
memory."  That  is  the  hardest  thing  Profes- 
sor Swing  could  find  it  in  his  heart  to  say 
of  an  atheist.     He  also  says  : 

Victor  Cousin  of  France,  was  the  rival 
of  Stuart  Mill  in  wisdom,  in  genius,  in  in- 
tellect ;  and  so  Guizot.  These  three  were 
similar  and  strikingly  great.  But  the  two 
latter  possessed  the  power  of  sentiment.  That 
golden  atmosphere  of  love  and  hope  that 
hangs  around  religion  enveloped  Victor 
Cousin  in  its  life-giving  folds.  Setting  out 
from  the  same  points  of  thought.  Cousin  al- 
ways came  up  to  God  and  Heaven,  and  Mr. 
Mill  to  the  practical  of  this  life  ;  to  the  hap- 
piness of  man  here,  and  then  paused.  Oh, 
what  a  deep  mystery  of  human  life  is  here  : 

From  the  same  father's  side. 
From  the  same  mother's  knee, 

One  journeys  to  a  gloomy  tide, — 
One  to  a  peaceful  sea. 

And  Cousin  and  Guizot  teach  us  that  there 
is  no  mental  greatness  too  large  for  religion. 
That  religion  depends  upon  the  world's  cre- 
dulity; but  they  teach  us,  even  beside  the  grave 
of  the  lamented  Mill,  that  religious  senti- 
ment is  a  divine  part  of  human  character, 
and  ought  to  make  its  sunlight  jday  in  every 
bosom  ;  and  that  the  more  gifted  the  genius 
the  sweeter  and  more  divine  may  be  its  col- 
ors in  the  soul's  horizon. 

It  is  not  diflacult  to  get  the  doctrine  of  that 
sermon.  Mr.  Mill  neglected  to  cultivate  the 
religious  sentiments.  This  neglect  has 
caused  a  shadow   to  rest  on    his  memory. 


This  shadow  would  have  been  all  removed  if 
he  had    only   cultivated  the  religious   senti- 
ment.    If  he  had  only   cultivated  it  to  the 
extent  of  Victor  Cousin,  for  this  shadow,  we 
infer,  does  not  rest  upon  the  memory  of  Vic- 
tor Cousin.      Well,   now,  what  did  Victor 
Cousin  know  about  the  Gospel?      He  knew 
about  as  much  about  it,   or  rather  believed 
about  as   much   respecting   it,  as  Confucius 
did.     Victor  Cousin  a  Christian,  a  believer 
in  the  deity  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  Trinity,  in 
salvation  through  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ, 
a  believer  in  the  personality  of  God  !     Why, 
Mr.  Moderator,  that  is  new' information  on  a 
subject  about  which  I  thought  I  knew  a  lit- 
tle.    If  he  (Mill)  only  had  such  a  religion  as 
the  pantheist  Victor  Cousin,  why  then   all 
this  blur  upon  his  memory  would  have  been 
removed  1     And  that  is  the  hardest  thing  he, 
(Swing)  dares  say  about  a  man  whose  whole  | 
object  in  life  was  the  pulling  down  of  truth  ;  0 
and  the  undermining  of  the  faith  of  God's  ;    . 
people  in  respect  to  the  verities  which  lie  at  i 
the  foundation  of  all  religion  !       <*-«-?-  W^^vvv/if 

I  give  Prof.  Swing  credit  for  being  a  man 
of  information,  and  in  all  this  discussion  I 
take  it  that  I  have  done  his  intellect  far  more 
credit  than  some  who  are  disposed  to  stand 
by  him  as  his  friends.  I  have  heard  it  said 
repeatedly  in  extenuation  of  his  equivocal 
statements  and  of  his  faulty  utterances  that 
he  is  not  a  "  theologian."  I  have  heard  it 
said  that  he  is  a  poet.  I  have  heard  it  said 
that  he  is  not  capable  of  making  clear  state- 
ments. Sir,  I  deny  it.  I  give  Prof.  Swing 
credit  for  great  intellectual  ability.  I  give 
him  credit  for  being  a  man  of  culture.  I 
give  him  credit  for  knowing  theology  so  well 
that  he  can  steer  between  TJnitarianism  and 
Presbyterianism,  so  that  you  cannot  tell  on 
which  side  of  the  line  he  belongs.  I  give 
him  credit  for  being  a  devoted  student.  I 
give  him  credit  for  being  a  philosopher,  for 
he  has  delivered  a  lecture  on  the  subject,  and 
a  very  good  lecture  it  is  said  to  be.  But  for 
a  man  to  deliver  a  lecture  on  "  Philosophy," 
and  to  make  such  a  statement  about  John 
Stuart  Mill,  and  to  preach  such  a  sermon 
after  his  death,  is  a  crime  which  this  court 
cannot  overlook.  He  knows  a,s  well  as  I  do 
that  John  Stuart  Mill  founded  the  Westmin- 
ster Review  ;  and  he  knows  as  well  as  1  do 
that  the  Westminster  lievieio  means  Atheism. 
He  knows  as  well  as  I  do  that  John  Stuart 
Mill  was  a  prominent  contributor  to  the 
FvrtnlcjJitly    Ilevitw ;  that   Morley  and  Mill 


PROF.  PATTON'S  ARGUMENT. 


83 


were  both  leading  disciples  of  Atheism.  He 
knows  that  the  issues  raised  in  their  philoso- 
phy were  issues  which  carry  with  them  the 
foundation  of  all  religion.  He  knows  as  well 
as  I  do  that  John  Stuart  Mill  stood  in  the 
front  as  the  representative  of  that  type  of 
philosophic  thought  which  denies  the  funda- 
mental differences  which  exist  in  respect  to 
mind  and  matter,  and  right  and  wrong, — 
verities  which  are  presumed  and  taken  for 
granted  when  we  enter  into  any  religious 
discussion.  He  knows  as  well  as  I  do  that 
John  Stuart  Mill  attacked  Sir  "William 
Hamilton's  philosophy  because  it  was  the 
bulwark  of  intuitionalism,  and,  until  intui- 
tionalism could  be  destroj'ed,  sensational  and 
materialistic  philosophy  could  make  no 
headway.  He  also,  with  an  energy  worthy 
of  a  better  cause,  or  a  true  missionary  enter- 
prise, went  to  work  to  destroy  the  principles 
which  lie  at  the  foundation  of  Christianity 
and  of  all  religion.  And  I  say  that  there 
never  was  a  greater  insult  oifered  to  Jesus 
Christ,  there  never  was  a  greater  insult 
offered  the  Presbyterian  Church,  never  did  a 
man  miss  a  great  opportunity  for  defending 
the  truth  as  is  in  Jesus,  and  never  did  he 
fail  to  discharge  the  duties  intrusted  to  him 
more  than  when  David  Swing  rose  in  his 
jnilpit  and  preached  a  sermon,  the  effect  of 
which  upon  the  minds  of  those  who  listened 
to  him  could  be  no  other  than  to  produce  the 
impression  that  it  was  not  such  a  bad  thing 
to  be  John  Stuart  Mill  after  all. 

I  pass  now  to  the  consideration  of  the 
fourth  specification  named  in  the  charge.  It 
is  that  Prof.  Swing  has  spoken  in  derogation 
of  the  Standards  of  the  Presbyterian  church 
and  of  the  doctrines  taught  therein.  A  man 
enters  a  church  of  his  own  free  will.  He  is 
not  asked  to  come  in.  He  is  not  asked  to 
stay  in.  He  comes  in  on  the  ground  that  he 
believes  sincerely  the  doctrines  of  that  church, 
and  it  is  common  honesty  for  a  man  when  he 
is  no  longer  in  sympathy  with  his  church  to 
leave  it  like  a  man.  Prof.  Swing  owes  his 
position  in  great  part  to  the  fact  that  he  has 
an  honored  name  in  the  Presbyterian  church. 
He  preaches  to  a  congregation  which  wor- 
ships in  a  church  that  has  received  expres- 
sions of  affection  from  the  Presbyterian 
church  throughout  this  land.  He  is  in 
the  pay  of  a  congregation  woo  suppose 
that  he  is  in  thorough  s^'mpathy  with  the 
doctrines  of  the  Presbyterian  church.  But 
now,  sir,  being  in  that  position,    honored   as 


he  is,  trusted  by  his  brethren,  is  it  right  for 
him  to  use  the  opportunities  which  he  has  of 
public  preaching  for  deriding  the  Standards 
and  for  ridiculing  the  faith  which  ho  has 
promised  sincerely  to  believe,  and  the  truths 
which  he  has  promised  sincerely  to  preach  ? 
I  need  not  argue  upon  that  question.  If  it  is 
true  that  David  Swing  has  ridiculed,  and  de- 
rided, and  sneered  at,  the  doctrines  which  are 
found  in  that  Confession,  is  this  Presbytery 
going  to  pass  that  over  as  a  light  offense? 
Are  you  going  to  put  these  charges  out  of 
court  as  frivolous  ?  Are  you  going  to  pass  a 
resolution  allowing  the  prosecutor  to  with- 
draw the  charges?  No,  you  will  not.  If  you  do 
I  will  impeach  Prof.  Swing  before  the  Synod, 
and  I  will  impeach  the  Presbytery  for  its  in- 
fidelity. Now,  I  will  prove  that  he  has  done 
it.  The  passage  contained  in  the  allegation 
reads  as  follows  : 

Over  the  idea  that  two  and  two  make  four 
no  blood  has  been  shed  ;  but  over  the  insinu- 
ation that  three  may  be  one,  and  one  three, 
there  has  ever  been  a  demand  for  external 
influence  to  brace  up  for  the  work  the  frail 
logical  faculty. 

"What  does  that  mean  ?  Does  it  not  mean 
this  :  That  he  is  using  the  very  objectiom 
of  the  Unitarians  that  three  are  one  and  one 
is  three,  and  that  he  is  taking  the  opportun- 
ity afforded  him  as  a  minister  of  Jesus  Christ 
to  ridicule  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  and 
say  that  we  need  some  extra  force  to  "  brace 
up  the  frail  logical  faculty."  "Would  a  man, 
who  sincerely  believed  three  are  one  and  one 
is  three,  say  that  ? 

It  is  probable  that  no  man  has  been  put  to 
death  for  heresy  regarding  the  Sermon  on 
the  Mount.  Its  declarati</ns  demand  no  tor- 
tures to  aid  human  faith.  But  when  a 
church  comes  along  with  the  legitimacy  and  its 
five  points,  or  with  the  prayer-book  or  its  in- 
fant baptism  [we  believe  in  infant  baptism 
or  are  supposed  to]  or  eternal  procession  of 
the  Holj'  Ghost,  then  come  the  demand  for 
the  rack  and  the  stake,  to  make  up  in  ter- 
rorism what  is  wanting  in  evidence. 

Now,  sir,  would  a  man  who  honestly  be- 
lieved in  the  five  points  of  Calvinism,  or  in 
infant  baptism,  or  in  the  eternal  procession 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  ridicule  these  doctrines 
as  he  does  in  this  language  before  a  great 
congregation  ?  ""vVould  j'ou,  brother  Kitt- 
redge,  go  into  your  pulpit  and  use  that  lan- 
guage and  expect  your  people  to  go  away  and 
think  you  thought  anything  of  "  infant  bap- 
tism." I  would  like  to  see  Mr.  Swing  go 
and  ask  one  of  the  ladies  in  his  congregation 
why  she  did    not   have  her  babe  Lapiised. 


84 


THE  TRIAL  OF  REV.  DAVID  SWING. 


"Madam,  you  have  not  brought  you  child  for 
baptism;  why  have  you  not  done  it?"  ""Why, 
Mr.  Swing,  I  do  not  believe  in  infant  bap- 
tism." Of  course,  nor  would  I  blame  her  to 
this  extent  that  I  think  it  perfectly  natural 
for  her  to  draw  the  conclusion,  from  that 
statement,  that  infant  l^aptism  was  nonsense. 

Are  you  going  to  allow  a  man  to  stand 
in  your  pulpit  and  deride  the  sacraments  of 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  ?  Page  23.  Truths  for 
To-Day. 

Look  back  over  the  history  of  Jewish  or 
Catholic  or  Waklensian  or  Protestant  sects, 
and  when  j'ou  seek  for  their  ideas  of  value 
you  come  at  last  to  their  charity  and  purity 
and  faith  in  God  and  the  Saviour — their  pur- 
suit of  knowledge  and  hope  of  heaven.  You 
think  of  nothing  else.  You  shoveraway  the 
dust  and  debris  of  centuries,  that  by  chance 
yuu  may  come  upon  these  jewels  in  the  dia- 
dem of  religion.  And  if  you  find  these,  j^ou 
bless  the  old  church  that  lived  and  died  on 
the  spot.  But  all  else  is  beneath  your  notice. 
Rubric,  surplice,  prayer-book,  two  souls  of 
Christ,  the  Eastern  time,  the  transfiguration 
light,  the  election,  the  predestination,  the 
laying  on  of  hands,  all  count  no  more  with 
the  thoughtful  historian  seeking  for  the  merits 
of  an  age,  than  counted  the  costumes  of  those 
eras  or  the  carriages  ihey  drove.  We  place 
them  below  price. 

"Two  souls  of  Christ!"  What  does  he 
mean  by  that  ?  that  he  does  not  believe  in 
the  human  nature  of  Christ  ?  that  Christ 
had  a  human  and  a  divine  will?  "Predes- 
tination!" Does  he  believe  in  that?  He 
does  not  tell  us  whether  he  does  or  not.  Take 
"predestination"  out  of  the  Confession  of 
Faith  and  what  is  left?  Take|^"  predestina- 
tion "  away  from  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
and  what  is  there  to  cause  the  Presbyterian 
Church  to  have  a  separate  existence?  Do 
not  the  Methodists  believe  in  the  Trinity  ? 
Do  they  not  believe  in  the  orthodox  doctrine 
of  the  person  of  Christ?  Do  not  the  Bap- 
tists believe  in  all  these  doctrines,  except 
"  Infant  Baptism?"  Take  away  or  cease  to 
love  the  doctrines  which  serve  to  difl"eren- 
tiate  our  church  from  other  churches,  and 
what  is  left?  These  doctrines.  Predestina- 
tion, Election,  etc.,  are  of  "no  more  impor- 
tance "  to  you  than  it  is  to  know  what  sort  of 
carriage  Julius  Caesar  rode  in. 

Let  me  read  you  a  passage  from  the  Chi- 
cago Pulpit,  showing  how  he  ridicules  the 
doctrines : 

Elizabeth  imprisoned  for  life  all  who  con- 
ducted religious  service  without  using  htr 
prayer-book.  Persons  not  believing  in  bish- 
ops were  branded  with  an  iron.  Anabap- 
tists and   Arians   were    tortured    and   then 


hung.  As  internal  piety  was  little  dreamed 
of  as  being  a  religious  test,  it  was  as  absurd, 
from  man  as  from  God.  God  was  a  Being 
partial  to  a  prayer-book  or  to  a  bishop. 
Forms  were  everything.  Knox  declared 
that  one  mass  was  more  fearful  to  him  than 
ten  thousand  armed  enemies  landed  in  any 
part  of  the  realm,  never  harboring  for  an 
instant  the  idea  that  beneath  the  service  of 
the  mass  there  might  be  a  pious  heart. 
There  was  no  weighing  of  soul.  It  was  all 
a  listening  to  words,  and  a  crowding  to  the 
fagot  those  whose  words  deviated  a  hair's 
breadth  from  the  model  held  in  the  hand  of 
some  bloated  ruler  or  licentious  priest.  In 
this  awful  reign  of  iron  sentences,  little  girls 
of  childhood  innocence,  and  mothers  whose 
love  is  an  erableni  to  earth  of  love  infinite, 
went  down  to  early  tombs  in  the  double 
agony  of  flesh  and  heart.  But  the  heart  of  a 
dove  counted  nothing  in  an  age  of  vowels 
and  consonants.  Catholic  word,^  killed  thou- 
sands of  Protestants,  and  Protestant  words 
killed  thousands  of  Catholics.  All  imagin- 
able doctrines  have  in  the  long,  bloody  pe- 
riod been  made  a  ground  of  life  or  death. 
Words  about  baptism,  words  about  the  Trin- 
ity, words  about  the  Pope,  words  about  tran- 
substantiation,  words  about  the  Virgin  Mary, 
words  about  the  Eucharist,  words  about  the 
doctrine  of  purgatory,  about  astronomy, 
have  exposed  the  body  to  the  stake  and  the 
soul  to  perdition. 

In  his  sermon  on  the  "Influence  of  De- 
mocracy on  Christian  Doctrine,"  he  says  : 

This  perpetual  industry  amid  external  pur- 
suits also  diverts  the  mind  from  the  study  of 
mj'steries  and  to  the  acceptance  and  enjoy- 
ment of  facts,  and  hence  the  public  mind 
turns  ayvay  from  predestination  and  repro- 
bation and  absolutism.  Not  simply  because  I 
it  has  developed  a  consciousness  of  freedom,; 
but  also,  because  in  the  long  association  withi 
facts,  it  has  lost  love  for  the  study  of  the  in- 
comprehensible in  both  religion  and  philoso- 
phy. In  this  casting  off  ox  old  garments  it 
no  more  cheerfully  throws  away  the  incon- 
ceivable of  Christianity  than  the  inconceiva-j 
ble  of  Spinoza.  In  this  abandonment  there' 
is  no  charge  of  falsehood  cast  upon  the  old; 
mysteries;  they  may  or  they  may  not  bes 
true;  there  is  only  a  passing  them  by  as  not 
being  in  the  line  of  the  current  wish  or  taste, 
raiment  for  a  past  age,  perhaps  for  a  future, 
but  not  acceptible  in  the  present. 

We  believe  that  the  verities  are  written  in 
God's  book  by  men  who  spoke  as  th^'  were 
moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost ;  and  we  have  no 
authority  in  the  book  of  God  for  casting  ofi" 
any  of  the  doctrines  as  the  "  raiment  of  a 
past  age." 

In  his  sermon,  "Salvation  and  Morality," 
he  says : 

In  this  Credit  Mobilier  phenomenon  I  see 
no  tendency  on  the  part  of  public  men  to 
base  their  souls  salvation  on  good  works. 
That  list  of  names  that  is,  at  the  same  time, 


PEOF.  PATTON'S  ARGUMEiJT. 


83 


associated  with  the  church  and  with  the  ac- 
ceptance of  bribes  does  not  seem  in  the  least 
inspired  by  any  reliance  upon  good  works  for 
salvation.  Their  hope  of  heaven  is  based 
upon  faith  alone.  The  righteousness  they 
dream  of  must  be  wholly  an  imputed  right- 
eousness. 

In  "St.  Paul  and  the  Golden  Age:  " 

Look  at  St.  Paul's  third  idea.  A  new  life, 
a  new  creature  1  It  will  be  the  development 
of  this  idea  that  will  announce  the  dawn  of 
a  perfect  civilization  and  a  golden  age.  The 
church  has  tried  the  religion  of  dogmas. 
The  Scotch  Church  reached  a  creed  of  4,000 
articles,  but  that  church,  and  all  branches  of 
all  churches,  have  furnished  thousands  of 
men  for  every  branch  of  dishonesty  and 
crime. 

In  "Soul  Culture:" 

It  is  not  the  trinity  that  moulds  human 
life,  but  the  doctrine  of  God.  It  is  not  the 
eternal  procession  of  the  Holy  Spirit  that 
may  shape  the  human  soul,  but  the  fact  of 
an  ever-present  spirit.  That  Christ  was 
eternally  begot  of  the  Father  is  a  doctrine 
that  cannot  be  appreciated  in  any  way  by 
man's  heart,  but  the  Christ  of  the  JSIew  Tes- 
tament can  be  grasped  and  loved,  and  hence 
the  responsibility  and  success  and  beauty  of 
human  life  will  all  be  related  to  the  latter  of 
these  statements,  and  be  wholly  discharged 
from  all  the  former  without  penalty  or  cost. 

Let  me  read,  also,  the  following  passage 
from  the  sermon  entitled  "Christianity  a 
Life,"  printed  in  the  Alliance  March  28, 
1874: 

It  is  a  niost  singular  fact  that  in  this 
great  temperance  reform  there  is  one  special 
multitude  of  intemperate  men,  and  a  large 
multitude  it  is,  too,  which  sustains  full  mem- 
bership in  an  orthodox  church,  in  a  church 
that  surpasses  all  others  in  asserting  the  di- 
vinity of  Christ  and  the  exj)itiatory  atone- 
ment. No  church  can  equal  it  in  delineat- 
ing the  pains  of  hell  and  the  joys  of  heaven, 
and  yet  with  all  these  cardinal  doctrines 
flaunted  upon  its  silk  banners,  and  intoned 
by  all  its  priests,  this  most  profoundly  ortho- 
dox church  sends  forth  from  its  bosom,  es- 
pecially from  its  Emerald  Isle,  a  swarin  of 
human  beings  almost  wholly  ruined  by  pov- 
erty, ignorance  and  vice.  They  land  upon 
our  shores  by  the  thousands  every  week,  and 
against  their  coming  we  do  not  object,  foi' 
all  Christian  hearts  ought  to  welcome  them 
from  a  land  of  famine  and  bondage  to  one  of 
plenty  and  liberty  ;  but  coming,  they  prove 
that  an  orthodox  creed  no  more  indicates 
actual  Christianity  than  poor  Kossuth's  con- 
stitution was  equivalent  to  an  enlightened 
state.  The  sorrows  of  Ireland  all  come  from 
the  fact  that  no  Christianity  has  ever  been 
given  them,  except  that  of  a  complex  series 
of  articles  ;  the  spirit  of  life  which  was  in 
Christ  has  not  been  busy  these  hundreds  of 
years,  freeing  them  from  the  law  of  sin  and 
death,  but  instead  of  this  spirit  of  Christ's 
life  being  preached  and  acted  before  them,  a 


hundred  articles  have  been  repeated  over 
their  darkened  minds  and  enslaved  hearts, 
with  the  accompaniment,  "Believe  and  go 
to  heaven,  or  disbelieve  and  be  lost." 

The  danger  of  being  misunderstood  when 
one  thus  speaks  about  creeds,  or  of  being  mis 
interpreted  by  tho.se  who  do  not  wish  to  un- 
derstand, is  fully  appreciated  ;  but  the  fact 
in  the  case  is  so  true  and  so  alarming,  that 
the  danger  of  my  being  misunderstood  is 
nothing  compared  with  the  danger  of  public 
morals,  if  Christ  should  not  be  more  fully 
presented  as  a  life.  Ho  must  lift  upward  the 
whole  mental  nature  until  all  intemperance, 
all  dishonesty,  all  uneharitublencss,  shall  be 
loathed  as  a  deep  dishonor.  Christ  must  be 
an  education,  a  refinement,  a  purity  of  heart; 
not  a  history  attested  by  four  evangelists  and 
confirmed  by  Joscphus  and  Tacitus,  and  hence 
believed,  but  a  spirit  entering  the  heart  and 
sweeping  away  the  law  of  sin  and  death. 
An  intemperate  Christian,  or  a  dishonest 
Christian,  must  be  confessed  to  be  the  real 
infidel,  for  whatever  his  lips  may  say,  his 
soul  is  against  Christ.  There  are  islands  in 
the  Pacific  which  it  is  said  had  no  vices  until 
Christians  went  there;  and  that  awful 
scourge  under  which  our  nation  groans,  and 
by  which  our  city  is  deeply  injured,  is  said  to 
be  the  peculiar  invention  and  favorite  of 
Christian  lands.  It  will  remain  so  until  the 
whole  church  moves  from  an  external  history 
of  religion  to  an  internal  spiritual  state,  and 
makes  the  spirit  of  Christ  the  true  test  of 
discipleship,  and  the  sole  object  of  all  preach- 
ing Sid  of  all  houses  of  worship.  In  this 
chapter  from  which  our  text  is  taken,  it  is 
affirmed  that  "  if  a  man  have  not  of  the  spirit 
of  Christ  he  is  none  of  His,"  but  the  Church 
has  never  believed  it,  but  has  oifered  heaven 
to  misers  and  drunkards,  when  once  a  year 
they  have  shown  some  zeal  for  an  external 
creed.  The  difficulty  in  Christianizing  India 
lies  in  the  pitiable  characters  revealed  there 
by  the  British  officers  and  subjects,  all  of 
whom  have  sworu  to  the  thirty-nine  articles. 
The  German  pietist  Tauler  was  right  when 
he  said  Christianity  is  an  expi-rience  within, 
and  one  thought  of  God  is  beyond  the  worth 
of  the  external  world. 

The  world  has  tried  external  doctrine  to 
the  most  extreme  limit.  It  has  taken  the 
ideas  of  the  Testament,  and  has  stated  them 
in  a  thousand  ways,  and  has  called  them 
everything  from  Arianism  to  Calvinism  ; 
froni  Lutherism  to  "Wesleyism ;  from  Ro- 
inani.'^m  to  Protestantism  ;  from  Mysticism 
to  Quakerism,  until  the  creeds  of  the  Church 
would  form  a  large  volume  ;  and  yet  not  a 
soul  from  the  atmosphere  of  any  of  these 
creeds  has  ever  been  anything  except  so  far 
as  he  cast  himself  ^dmply  upon  the  spirit  of 
Christ's  life,  and  sutlered  that  vast  spiritual- 
ity to  separate  him  from  his  body  of  death, 
to"  crush  the  law,  that  when  he  would  do  good 
evil  was  present  with  him  ;  and  whenever 
any  soul  has  done  this,  ho  has  risen  up  in  the 
same  spiritual  beauty,  whether  he  was  a 
Catholic  like  Fenelon,  or  a  iMethodist  like 
W  esley,  or  a  Calvinist  like  Chalmers  ;  risen 


86 


THE  TRIAL  OF  EEV.  DAVID  SWING. 


the  same,  because  there  is  no  rising  at  all  for 
a  Christian  except  right  up  out  of  the  spirit 
of  Christ.  Christianity  is  in  man  a  "  well  of 
water  springing  up,"  and  hence  no  one  can 
distinguish  "between  the  Catholic  Massillon, 
and  the  Protestant  Eobert  Hall,  because  they 
came  not  from  an  external,  changing  creed, 
but  from  the  life  of  the  Lord.  Let  our  sun 
sink  where  it  may,  the  same  gold  gathers 
about  the  West  in  Oregon  that  hangs  out  its 
banners  in  England  or  on  the  mountains  of 
Asia,  because  the  atmosphere  is  the  same  and 
the  sun  is  the  same,  and  the  clouds  are  the 
same  everywhere  ;  and  thus  true  Christians 
are  all  one,  because  they  come  not  from  mani- 
fold doctrines,  but  they  are  the  same  soul 
colored  bj'  the  same  Christ,  whether  he  is 
seen  in  old  Judea  or  new  America. 

It  would  seem  as  if  it  were  not  necessary 
to  find  any  statutory  enactment  to  prove  that 
a  depraving  of  the  symbols  of  our  Church  is 
an  offense  to  be  visited  by  censure  at  the 
hands  of  those  who  have  the  right  to  inflict 
it.  And  yet,  lest  some  skepticism  should 
exist  in  the  minds  of  the  brethren  upon  the 
subject,  I  take  leave  to  quote  from  a  book 
which  will  not  be  recognized  as  an  authority 
by  the  court,  but  which  I  will  refer  to  as  part 
of  my  argument,  and  will  supplement  by  a 
reference  to  our  own  Digest.  The  volume  is 
"A  Collection  of  Ecclesiastical  Judgments  of 
the  English  Privy  Council ;"  and  I  simply 
refer  to  this  case  as  parallel  to  the  one  in 
hand,  in  order  that  the  court  may  see  how 
another  Christian  body  deals  with  ofl"enses 
similar  to  the  one  about  which  I  am  speaking. 
In  the  case  of  Head  vs.  Sanders,  in  the  year 
1842, — the  matter  was  in  respect  to  the  de- 
praving of  the  Prayer  Book, — the  party  ac- 
cused had  used  the  following  and  similar 
language  :     I  will  read — 

As  reformation  in  this  respect  is  useless, 
and  as  I  also  am  pledged  by  my  ordination 
vows,  as  a  minister  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, to  banish  and  drive  out  all  erroneous 
doctrines,  I  do  hereby  decline  and  refuse  to 
give  any  countenance  whatever  to  the  office 
of  confirmation,  as  it  is  now  used  by  their 
lordships  the  bishops,  and  instead  of  recom- 
mending, in  compliance  with  the  Episcopal 
circular,  the  perusal  and  re-perusal  of  that 
service  to  the  young  persons  of  this  parish,  I 
warn  them  all,  young  and  old,  and  middle- 
aged,  to  beware  in  the  name  of  God,  of  the 
erroneous  and  strange  doctrines  which  it 
contains.  It  will  be  said  that  on  this  I 
desire  to  be  turned  out  of  the  church.  Are 
all  clergymen  to  be  turned  out  of  the  min- 
istry who  dissent  from  certain  points  in 
the  prayer-book?  *         *         *  It  jg 

also  a  fact  that  the  prayer-book  sins  against 
itself;  some  parts  of  it  are  at  variance 
with  other  parts;  the  fourth,  sixth,  eighth 


and  thirty-sixth  canons  are  repugnant  to  the 
first  and  third  ordination  vows. 

The  case  has  been  remitted  to  the  Arch- 
es' Court,  and  decided.  I  will  quote  a  few 
passages  from  Sir  H.  G.  Fust's  judgment : 

"It  is  no  part  of  the  province  of  this 
court  to  determine  whether  the  Book  of 
Common  Prayer  does  contain  erroneous  doc- 
trines ;  it  is  sufficient  for  the  court  that  it  is 
the  book  which  is  used  by  the  clergy  as  pre- 
scribed by  the  law  of  the  land.  The  ques- 
tion is,  Are  the  words  used  in  Mr.  Head's 
letter  derogatory  and  in  depravation  of  that 
book.        *  *         *         *         I    feel    no 

doubt  that  Mr.  Head  is  clearly  within  the 
provisions  of  the  statute  of  Elizabeth,  but 
under  the  present  ecclesiastical  law  Mr. 
Head  is  punishable  for  publishing  this  letter, 
of  which  he  openly  avows  himself  the  au- 
thor. *  *  I  therefore  think  that  Mr. 
Head  has  incurred  the  extreme  sentence  ox 
this  court,  and  that  the  court  would  be  justi- 
fied in  pronouncing  against  him  a  sentence 
of  deprivation.  If  Mr.  Head  could  not 
have  obtained  possession  of  his  living  with- 
out assenting  or  consenting  to  the  use  of  all 
things  contained  in  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer,  he  cannot  complain  if  by  the  sen- 
tence of  this  court  he  is  placed  in  precisely 
the  same  position,  as  if  he  had  not,  within 
two  months,  conformed  to  the  provisions  of 
the  statute,  and  if  he  had  not  done  so,  he 
would  ipso  facto  have  been  deprived. 

Professor  Swing  cannot  complain,  accord- 
ing to  the  reasoning  of  the  Arches  court, 
which  is  worthy  of  a  great  deal  of  consider- 
ation by  even  this  body,  if  we  put  him  in 
the  position  in  which  he  would  be  if,  being 
a  candidate  for  ordination  vows,  he  was 
known  to  have  uttered  the  sentiments  with 
which  he  is  charged.  The  Presbytery  would 
not  license  or  ordain  a  man  who,  in  his  trial 
discourses,  had  proclaimed  such  views  as  I 
have  read  from  his  (Swing's)  discourses  ;  and 
having  pi'eached  them,  by  all  that  is  right 
and  just,  if  justice  were  done  him,  he  should 
be  put  in  the  position  he  would  be  in  if  he 
were  a  candidate  for  ordination,  unless  the 
proper  I'etractions  are  made.  I  am  aware 
that  there  may  be  those  wha  will  question 
the  decision,  and  I  beg  to  read  from  a  book — 
the  new  Digest  of  the  Presbyterian  church — 
which  every  man  of  us  will  swear  by.  It  is 
a  principle  of  our  Form  of  Government  that 
doctrinal  truth  is  of  great  importance,  and 
that  formulated  truth  is  essential  to  the  exis- 
tence of  a  religious  organization.  I  will 
read  the  section,  and  I  claim  that  Professor 
Swing  has  contravened  this  principle  and 
having  done  so,  has  laid  himself  liable  to 
censure,  and  that  the  knowledge  of  this  fact 
being  before  this  Pre&byteiy,  tiie  Presbytery 


PKOF.  PATTON'S  AllGU.MENT. 


•will  be  derelict  if  it  passes  it  by  with  an  ac- 
quittal. 

Section  iv,  chap,  i  of  the  Form  of  Gov- 
erjiment  reads  as  follows  : 

That  truth  is  in  order  to  goodness;  and  the 
great  touchstone  of  truth,  its  tendency  to 
promote  holiness  ;  according  to  our  Saviour's 
rule,  "  by  their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them." 
And  that  no  opinion  can  be  either  more  per- 
nicious or  more  absurd,  than  that  which 
brings  truth  and  falsehood  upon  a  level,  and 
repri^sents  it  as  of  no  consequence  what  a 
man's  opinions  are.  On  the  contrary  they 
are  persuaded  that  there  is  an  inseparable  con- 
nection between  faith  and  practice,  truth  and 
duty.  Otherwise  it  would  be  of  no  conse- 
quence either  to  discover  truth,  or  to  em- 
brace it. 

If  Professor  Swing  has  not  ridiculed  vital 
truth,  and  put  "  truth  and  falsehood  on  a 
level  "  and  represented  that  it  "is  of  no  im- 
portance what  a  man's  opinions  are,"  then  I 
say  it  is  as  impossible  for  him  to  contravene 
the  statutes  of  our  church,  as  laid  down  in 
this  section,  as  it  is  impossible,  under  the  re- 
vised law  for  the  punishment  of  murder,  to 
violate  that  statute  in  tlie  city  of  New  York. 

"We  find  that  that  principle  is  not  a  dead 
letter.  If  it  is,  it  is  time  for  us  to  galvanize 
it,  for  in  a  deliverance  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly— I  will  quote  now  from  the  same  book 
(new  Digest),  page  54,  where  it  is  said  : 

This  Confession  of  Faith,  adopted  by  our 
church,  contains  a  system  of  doctrines  pro- 
fessedly believed  by  the  people  and  the  pas- 
tors under  the  care  of  the  General  Assembly; 
nor  can  it  be  traduced  by  any  in  the  commu- 
nion of  our  church  without  subjectins:  the 
erring  parties  to  that  salutary  discipline 
which  hath  for  its  object  the  maintenance  of 
the  peace  and  purity  of  the  church  and  the 
government  of  her  great  Master. 

The  application  of  that  sentence  would  be 
as  much  to  the  people  as  to  the  ministers, 
but,  if  to  the  people,  a  fortiori  to  the  ministers 
who  are  the  accredited  ambassadors  of  Christ 
and  the  commissioned  teachers  of  the  people. 

In  1825  a  subsequent  deliverance  was 
made  in  the  following  form  : 

The  committee  appointed  on  an  overture 
respecting  the  consistency  of  admitting  to  its 
church  ministers  who  manifest  a  decided  hos- 
tility to  ecclesiastical  creeds,  confessions,  and 
formulas,  make  the  following  report,  which 
was  adopted,  viz  :  1.  That  the  constitution,  as 
is  well  known,  expressly  requires  of  all  can- 
didates for  admission  a  solemn  declaration 
that  they  sincerely  receive  and  adopt  the 
Confession  of  Faith  of  this  church  as  contain- 
ing the  system  of  doctrine  taught  in  the 
Holy  Scriptures. 

2.  That  the  last  Assembly,  in  a  report  of 
their  committee,  have  so  explicitly  and  fully 


87 

declared  the  sentiments  of  the  church  in  ro;;iird 
to  her  ecclesiastical  standard,  and  all  williin 
her  communion  who  may  traduce  them,  that 
no  further  expression  of  our  views  on  this 
subject  is  deemed  necessary. 

Prof.  Swing,  in  the  passages  which  I  have 
adduced  from  his  writings,  has  so  traduced, 
has  so  ridiculed,  has  by  irony  and  insinuation 
so  alluded  to  the  vital  doctrines,  and  the  dis- 
tinguishing doctrines  of  our  church  that  the 
natural  effect  of  such  language  upon  the 
minds  of  those  who  heard  him  could  only  be 
to  breed  a  skepticism  in  respect  to  them  or  to 
lead  them  to  treat  them  with  contempt. 
There  can  be  no  question  on  this  subject.  Now 
if  Prof.  Swing  had  come  into  this  court  and 
said,  "Mr.  Moderator  and  brethren,  I  admit 
the  charges ;  I  confess  I  have  used  indiscreet 
language;  I  admit  that  these  sentiments 
ought  not  to  have  fallen  from  my  lips  ;  and 
now  that  I  have  been  reminded  of  it  I  pro- 
mise to  be  careful  in  the  time  to  come,".]I 
imagine  the  members  of  the  Presbytery 
would  have  felt  differently  on  the  subject. 
But  how  does  he  act  ?  So  far  from  expressing 
regret,  or  having  anything  to  say  by  way  of 
retraction,  he  comes  into  this  court,  assumes 
a  defiant  stand  at  the  desk,  and  not  only  does 
not  retract  the  statements,  but  goes  on  to 
make  still  more  insulting  statements  in  re- 
spect to  the  doctrines  of  our  church. 

If  the  public  does  not  believe  that  the 
Presbyterian  church  holds  to  "  Infant  Dam- 
nation," it  is  not  because  Prof.  Swing  has 
not  tried  to  produce  that  impression.  If 
there  is  any  impression  produced  upon  the 
public  mind,  as  the  result  of  Prof.  Swing's 
plea,  it  is  that  the  Presbyterian  church,  either 
in  her  formulated  standards,  or  by  her  repre- 
sentative men,  does  teach  the  doctrine  of 
infant  damnation.  I  say,  sir,  with  some 
knowledge  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Presby- 
terian church,  and  with  some  knowledge  of 
the  men  who  represent  that  church,  and 
with  some  acquaintance  with  Presbyterian 
history,  that  such  a  statement  is  not  true  and 
that  a  Presbyterian  minister  making  a  state- 
ment of  that  kind  on  the  floor  of  this  body 
deserves  censure  for  it. 

I  say  not  only  has  he  derided  our  doctrines 
with  respect  to  the  subject  of  "  Predestina- 
tion," but  what  did  he  say  on  the  subject  of 
"Future  Punishment?"  What  did  he  say 
on  the  subject  of  "  Fatalism  V  What  did 
he  say  on  the  subject  of  "Salvation  by 
Faith?"  Was  not  the  imputation  cast 
•  uj-on    the     Presbyterian     Church    in    that 


88 


THE  TKIAL  0?  PwEV.  DAVID  SWING. 


plea  that  she  believed  in  salvation 
on  the  ground  of  naked  assent.?  He 
has  imputed  Antinomianism  to  the  Presbyter- 
ian Church,  and  the  Presbyterian  Church 
■will  resent  such  a  statement. 

We  are  charged  with  holding  such  views 
regarding  future  destiny  as  to  pander  to 
infidelity.  I  wish  to  know  if  the  Presbytery 
will  allow  that  to  go  on  record  without  put- 
ting a  sign  of  disapproval  on  it  ?  And,  in 
view  of  the  utterances  quoted  from  his  ser- 
mons, of  his  plea  before  the  Presbytery, 
whether  you  are  willing  to  say  that  he  is  a 
faithful  minister,  and  a  fair  representative  of 
the  Gospel  as  you  understand  it,  and  as  set 
forth  in  the  grand  old  symbols  of  our 
Church. 

The  Presbytery  then  adjourned  with  prayer 
until  half-past  9  o'clock  Wednesday  morning. 


Wednesday,  May  13th,  1874. 
The  Presbytery  met  at  9:30  o'clock  A.  M., 
and  was  opened  with  prayer.      Prof.  Patton 
resumed  the  argument  for  the  prosecution  as 
follows : 

ARGUMENT   OF    THE    PEOSECUTOR. 
(  Continued.) 

Moderator  and  Bretliren. — When  the  hour 
of  adjournment  arrived  yesterday  I  had 
reached  the  fifth  specification,  and  was  about 
to  enter  upon  a  consideration  of  it.  I  take 
up  my  remarks  this  morning  at  the  point 
where  I  left  ofi";  and  I  take  it  that  the  breth- 
ren of  this  Presbytery  will  be  with  me  in 
the  opinion  that  if  the  allegation  set  forth 
in  this  specification  can  be  proved,  it  is  a 
very  serious  charge,  and  one  of  such  gravity 
that  this  Presbytery  cannot  aftord  to  over- 
look it.     I  will  read  the  specification. 

Being  a  minister  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  and  preaching  regularly  to  the 
Fourth  Presbyterian  Church  of  this  city,  he 
has  omitted  to  preach  in  his  sermons  the  doc- 
trines commonly  known  as  Evangelical — 
that  is  to  say,  in  particular,  he  omits  to 
preach  or  teach  one  or  more  of  the  doctrines 
indicated  in  the  following  statements  of 
Scripture,  namely :  That  Christ  is  a  "  propi- 
tiation for  our  sins;"  that  we  are  "justified 
by  faith  ;"  that  "  there  in  no  other  name  un- 
der heaven  given  among  men  whereby  we 
maybe  saved;"  that  Jesus  is  "equal  with 
God,"  and  is  "God  manifest  in  the  flesh;" 
that  "  all  Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration 
of  God,"  and  that  "  the  wicked  shall  go 
away  into  everlasting  punishment." 

Nor  will  there  be  any  question,  I  take  it, 
but  that    this    is    the    basis   on   which  all 


churches  who  have  a  right  to  he  called  Evan- 
gelical will  stand.  One  of  the  Elders  of  the 
Fourth  Church  read  this  specification  as 
expressing  his  views  of  what  evangelical 
preaching  is,  and  as  expressing  his  idea  of 
what  doctrines  are  embraced  in  the  evangeli- 
cal system. 

Now,  sir,  it  is  affirmed  in  this  allegation 
that  Prof.  Swing  has  omitted  to  preach  in 
his  sermons  these  doctrines.  Our  church 
has  taken  special  care  to  invest  the  ministry 
with  the  gravest  sanction.  When  a  candi- 
date comes  forward  for  licensure  he  answers 
in  the  affirmative  the  question  whether  he 
receives  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testament  as  being  the  word  of  God  and  the 
infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice.  And 
he  answers  likewise  in  the  affirmative  the 
question  whether  he  sincerely  receives  and 
adopts  the  Confession  of  Faith  as  containing 
the  system  of  doctrine  taught  in  the  Word 
of  *God.  And  when  subsequently  he  comes 
forward  as  a  candidate  for  ordination  and  is 
installed  over  a  church  as  its  pastor,  these 
questions  are  repeated  and  questions  like  the 
following  are  added  : 

Do  you  promise  to  be  zealous  and  faithful 
in  maintaining  the  truths  of  the  Gospel,  and 
the  purity  and  peace  of  the  church,  whatever 
persecution  of  opposition  may  arise  unto 
you  on  that  account?  Do  you  engage  to  be 
faithful  and  diligent  in  the  exercise  of  all 
private  and  personal  duties  which  become 
you  as- a  Christian  and  as  a  minister  of  the 
Gospel,  as  well  as  in  all  relative  duties  ;  and 
the  public  duties  of  your  oflSce,  endeavoring 
to  adorn  the  profession  of  the  Gospel  by  your 
conversation;  and  walking  with  exemplary 
piety  before  the  flock  over  which  God  shall 
make  you  overseer  ? 

Now,  if  you  were  to  ask  the  question  of 
this  house  as  to  what  they  would  consider 
the  faithful  discharge  of  the  duties  of  the 
Christian  ministry,  and  the  full  observance 
of  ordination  vows,  I  .take  it  they  would 
answer,  without  a  dissenting  voice,  that  chief 
among  these  duties  is  the  preaching  of  the 
doctrines  set  forth  in  these  allegations. 
Why,  sir,  if  Chistianity  has  one  claim  upon 
us  at  all,  it  grounds  itself  in  the  fact  that 
Jesus  Christ  saved  us  by  the  shedding  of 
His  precious  blood  ;  that  we  are  not  redeemed 
of  corruptible  things  as  of  silver  and  gold,  but 
with  the  precious  blood  of  a  Lamb,  without 
spot  or  blemish.  "Without  the  shedding  of 
blood  there  is  no  remission  of  sins."  Blood 
is  a  cardinal  feature  in  the  Old  Testament, 
and  it  occupies  a  very  important  place  in  the 
New.    Therefore,  when  we  find  a  minister 


PPvOF.  PATTON'S  AEGUMENT. 


preaching  without  much  mention  of  blood  ; 
when  we  do  not  see  the  scarlet  thread  wind- 
ing its  way  throughout  the  whole  web  of 
his  Gospel  ministrations,  lam  very  apt  to  be 
suspicious  that  there  is  something  wrong  in 
respect  to  his  views  of  the  expiatoiy  sacri- 
fice. I  affirm  that  this  is  true  of  Professor 
Swing,  that  he  says  nothing  about  the 
blood  of  Christ,  and  that  he  docs  not  preach 
that  we  are  redeemed  with  the  precious 
blood  of  the  Lamb  ;  and  not  only  so,  but  it 
is  a  cardinal  feature  of  the  Gospel  system 
that  we  are  justified  and  counted  righteous 
b}'  faith.  That  is  the  cardinal  feature  of  the 
reformation,  and  that  is  the  great  feature  of 
the  Protestant  Christian  Church. 

I  affirm  that  this  doctrine  is  not  found  in 
his  preaching,  and  occupies  no  place  in  his 
sermons.  And  I  shall  affirm,  when  the 
proper  time  comes,  that  he  preaches  a  direct 
contradiction  to  this  doctrine.  And  still 
further:  If  Christianity  has  any  special 
claim  upon  us  ;  if  our  missionary  enterprises 
are  to  be  engaged  in  with  any  zeal,  then  the 
doctrine  which  lies  as  the  reason  of  those 
enterprises,  and  which  constitutes  the  basis 
of  all  missionary  effort,  is  that  "there  is  no 
other  name  given  under  heaven  among  men 
whereby  we  can  be  saved."  It  was  this  idea 
which  made  Saul  of  Tarsus  Paul  the  preach- 
er to  the  gentiles.  It  was  this  idea  which 
laid  the  foundation  for  Paul's  Epistle  to 
the  Eomans.  It  is  this  idea,  sir,  which 
constitutes  the  ground  and  reason  for  the  ex- 
istence of  the  Christian  ministry,  and  the 
perpetuation  of  the  Christian  system. 

I  affirm  that  this  doctrine  is  not  taught  in 
Prof.  Swing's  sermons,  and  I  shall  affirm 
moreover  that  the  contrary  doctrine  is 
taught,  either  directly  or  by  necessary  impli- 
cation. And  not  only  so,  but  if  I  am  to  re- 
ceive these  doctrines  as  of  any  authority,  then 
there  must  be  some  one  who  shall  tell  me 
that  I  am  bound  to  receive  them,  and  for 
some  better  reason  than  that  he  supposes 
them  to  be  true.  Now,  there  are  three  possi- 
ble standards  of  faith.  One  is  that  standard 
of  rationalism  which  makes  the  human  mind 
its  own  basis,  and  which  makes  the  individual 
judgment  the  criterion  of  truth.  Another  is 
the  Eomish  doctrine  which  makes  a  visible 
organization  the  standard  of  faith,  and  which 
says  that  a  certain  doctrine  is  true  because 
a  given  organization,  said  to  be  inspired  by 
God's  spirit,  and  therefore  infallible,  has 
said  that  it  is  true.      Now,  sir,   the  cardinal 


feature  of  Protestantism,  as  opposed  to 
rationalism  on  the  one  hand  and  Eomanism 
upon  the  other, is, that  the  Bible  is  the  standard 
of  faith  and  of  practice  ;  that  what  it  says  is 
true  ;  that  where  it  says  anything,  it  is  of 
sufficient  authority,  and  we  need  not  go 
elsewhere.  I  affirm  that  Prof.  Swing  does 
not  teach  this  doctrine,  to  Avit:  That  the 
Scriptures  are  given  by  inspiration  of  God 
and  that  they  are  the  only  rule  of  faith  and 
practice.  And  moreover,  sir,  if  the  idea 
were  once  lodged  in  the  human  mind  with 
anj'  success,  that  whatever  betide,  we  were  all 
going  to  heaven  in  the  end,  you  would  rob 
this  world  of  one  of  the  motives  which  in- 
fluence men  in  their  accepting  Christ  and  in 
their  leading  a  Christian  life.  You  may  say 
that  is  a  Utilitarian  idea.  I  do  not  care  if  you 
do.  If  it  is  a  Utilitarian  idea  then  God  is 
Utilitarian.  For  He  has  put  this  motive  in 
His  book  in  black  and  white,  and  He  says  he 
that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned.  Jesus 
Christ  is  as  good  authority  to-day  as  he  was 
when  these  words  fell  from  his  gentle  lips.  I 
affirm  that  Prof.  Swing  does  not  teach  this 
doctrine. 

Now,  Mr.  Moderator,  I  shall  be  told  in 
reply  that  we  cannot  expect  all  men  to 
preach  alike.  We  must  not  undertake  to 
suppress  a  man's  individuality.  We  must 
not  undertake  to  run  a  man  in  our  mould. 
Certainly  not.  God  forbid.  If  a  man  is 
emotional  in  his  nature,  then  I  like  to  see  his 
preaching  show  it — all  the  better.  If  a  man 
is  dry,  he  can't  help  it;  he  must  do  the  best 
he  can  with  what  he  has.  If  a  man  is  logi- 
cal in  his  nature,  he  can't  help  that.  So,  sir, 
that  would  be  no  reply.  I  claim  that  a  man 
can  so  use  the  gifts  God  Las  given  him  as 
that  he  can  preach  these  doctrines.  If  he 
has  poetry  in  his  nature  then  let  him  invest 
these  doctrines  with  the  charms  of  poetry. 
If  he  is  dry,  let  him  do  the  best  he  can  and 
present  a  clean  cut  statement  of  the  doctrines 
and  the  same  God  who  created  the  faculties 
will  bless  the  use  of  them.  Then  I  shall  be 
told  that  Prof.  Swing  is  a  poet,  and  that  you 
cannot  expect  him  to  express  these  truths 
with  the  same  regard  to  formulative  strict- 
ness as  we  do  when  persons  make  theology 
their  business.  Well,  no,  sir,  no  more  than 
I  expect  a  balloon  to  run  a  railroad  track. 
But  I  claim  that  if  ho  is  a  poet,— so  was 
Toplady.  If  Toplady's  genius  enabled  him 
to  write 

Nothing  in  my  hands  I  hring; 
Simply  to  thy  cross  I  cling. 


90 


THE  TRIAL  OF  EEV.  DAVID  SWING. 


Prof.  Swing  might  use  his  culture  to  carry 
the  gospel  with  more  power.  If  he  has  the 
power  then  all  the  more  shame  that  he  does 
not  use  it  in  the  service  of  his  Master. 

Then  I  shall  be  told  that  Prof.  Swing  is 
not  capable  of  making  strict  statements  ;  that 
it  is  not  in  his  power  to  speak  these  truths 
with  distinctness  ;  that  it  is  an  idiosyncracy 
of  his  to  be  unable  to  express  himself  with 
clearness.  Sir,  I  deny  it.  I  know  better, 
I  have  far  more  respect  for  his  intellect.  I 
know  that  when  he  chooses,  he  can  be  as 
transparent  as  glass,  and  when  he  chooses  he 
can  be  as  ambiguous  as  a  Delphic  oracle. 

Mr.  Moderator,  I  shall  be  told  again  that 
a  man  cannot  be  expected  to  preach  a  ser- 
mon every  Sunday  on  some  particular  doc- 
trine. "Well,  if  a  man  should  build  up  such 
a  man  of  straw,  I  hope  he  will  get  all  the 
gymnastics  which  are  necessary  in  knocking 
him  down ;  and  the  only  good  it  will  do  him 
will  be  the  benefit  to  his  health.  But  I  have 
not  affirmed  that  it  is  necessary  for  a  man  to 
preach  a  doctrinal  sermon.  I  do  not  care 
what  the  pattern  is  which  he  chooses  to 
weave.  All  I  want  is  that  the  ground  of 
that  web  shall  be  the  Gospel.  In  that  sense 
I  do  believe  that  every  Christian  sermon 
should  be  dyed  in  the  blood  of  Christ. 

Now,  Mr.  Moderator,  I  have  affirmed  that 
these  things  are  so,  and  oflFered  in  evidence 
the  sermons  which  have  been  printed  by 
Professor  Swing's  authority.  I  defy  any  man 
to  find  these  doctrines  in  his  sermons.  If  he 
did  find  them  I  should  have  some  doubt 
about  his  knowledge  of  these  doctrines. 
There  is  not  a  man  on  this  fioor  who  will  say 
that  those  doctrines  are  in  these  sermons. 

Well,  they  will  tell  me  that  these  are  only 
specimen  sermons,  and  I  think  that  will  be 
the  most  plausible  reply  that  they  can  make. 
I  think,  sir,  that  the  theory  of  the  defense 
and  the  one  that  will  be  most  creditable  to 
their  ingenuity,  will  be  this  :  they  will  say, 
"  Grant  that  these  doctrines  are  not  in  those 
sermons  in  any  explicit  form.  Do  you  mean 
to  take  those  sermons  as  an  indication  of  Pro- 
fessor Swing's  theology.  Don't  you  know  he 
has  been  preaching  seven  years  in  this  city  ? 
Do  you  not  know  that  these  sermons  are  a 
mere  fragment  ?  Will  you  take  a  fragment 
of  a  man's  theology,  and  regard  it  as  rep- 
resentative of  what  he  believes?"  To  that 
I  have  to  say  that  if  a  man  publishes  a 
volume  of  sermons,  it  is  fair  to  presume  he 
puts   those   sermons  forward  with  the  idea 


that  they  shall  do  good,  for  he  puts  them  in 
the  hands  of  the  public,  that  the  men  who 
are  not  reached  by  his  voice  may  be  reached 
by  the  printed  page ;  that  those  souls  who 
are  not  led  to  Jesus  under  the  direct  instru- 
mentality of  his  spoken  words,  may  be  led 
to  Him  by  the  preaching  of  the  truth  of 
Scripture  as  it  is  published  by  the  press. 
And  when  he  does  not  announce  them 
in  the  only  volume  which  has  ever  been 
put  out  over  his  name,  I  think  it  is  a  fair 
presumption  that  he  does  not  regard  the 
doctrines  set  forth  in  this  allegation  as  para- 
mount. 

But  that  is  not  all.  They  will  say  still, 
"It  is  for  you  to  prove  that  he  does  not 
preach  these  doctrines,"  and  I  accept  the 
challenge.  They  will  say,  "These  sermons 
contain  only  a  portion  of  Professor  Swing's 
preaching.  You  have  affirmed  that  during 
a  period  of  four  years,  that  is  to  say,  during 
the  period  of  time  when  he  has  been  pastor 
of  the  Fourth  Church,  he  has  not  preached 
these  doctrines.  Now  prove  it."  And  then 
they  will  tell  me  that  the  burden  is  laid  on 
me  of  proving  a  negative.  Be  it  so.  I  do 
prove  it.  It  is  not  incumbent  on  me,  and 
this  is  a  point  which  I  wish  to  get  clearly 
before  the  minds  of  the  judicatory  because 
I  know  it  will  help  very  materially  in  de- 
termining their  judgment  in  the  case — it  is 
not  incumbent  upon  me,  in  order  to  estab- 
lish tliis  negative  proposition,  that  I  shall 
have  had  access  to  every  sermon  which  Prof. 
Swing  has  preached ;  that  I  shall  have  heard 
every  sermon  he  has  preached,  or  that  I  shall 
bring  witnesses  here  who  have  heard  every 
sermon  he  has  preached,  and  who  will  there- 
fore give  their  testimony  as  to  its  character. 
It  is  sufficient  for  me  if  I  raise  a  fair  pre- 
sumption that  he  docs  not  preach  these  doc- 
trines, and  that  I  do  raise  this  fair  presump- 
tion is  shown  in  the  fact  that  I  offered  all 
the  printed  sermons  to  which  I  can  get  ac- 
cess, and  I  affirm  that  in  all  those  printed 
sermons  these  doctrines  are  wanting;  that  in 
none  of  these  printed  sermons  are  these  doc- 
trines to  be  found. 

Now,  sir,  it  is  a  principle  in  evidence  that 
where  a  negative  proposition  of  this  kind 
lays  the  burden  of  proof  upon  the  party  af- 
firming it,  it  is  not  necessary  for  the  party 
to  make  plenary  proof  of  the  same.  And 
in  order  to  back  this  by  some  authority,  I 
will  quote  a  passage  from  Greenleaf,  first, 
and  also  a  pa.-sage  of    greater  length  from 


TROF.  PATTON'S  ARGUMENT. 


91 


the  decision  of  Judge  Caton,  of  our  own  Su- 
preme Court.  I  read  from  1  Groenleaf,  Part 
II,  Chap.  Ill,  §  78. 

So  in  a  prosecution  for  a  penalty  given  by 
the  statute,  if  the  statute  in  describing  tlie 
offense,  contain  negative  matter,  the  count 
must  contain  such  negative  allegations,  and 
it  must  be  supported  by  prima  facie  proof. 
Such  is  the  case  in  prosecuiions  for  penalties 
given  bj''  the  statute,  for  cour.sing  deer  in  en- 
closed grounds  not  having  the  consent  of  the 
owner,  or  for  cutting  trees  on  lands  not  the 
party's  own.  *  *  *  *  In  these  and  the 
like  cases  it  is  obvious  that  plenary  proof  on 
the  part  of  the  affirmant  is  not  to  be  expected, 
and  therefore,  it  is  considered  sufficient  if  ho 
ofler  such  evidence,  as,  in  the  absence  of 
counter  testimony,  would  aftbrd  ground  for 
presuming  that  the  allegation  is  true. 

Also,  the  30th  Illinois,  page  352,  the  deci- 
sion of  Judge  Caton,  which  runs  to  the  fol- 
lowing effect ;  and  it  is  in  reference  to  a 
complaint  brought  by  a  party  against  a  rail- 
road company  for  the  killing  of  a  mule.  The 
passage  which  I  wish  to  read,  is  this : 

We  have  repeatedly  held  that  it  is  neces- 
sary in  pleading  to  negative  all  these  excep- 
tions. Whether  it  is  necessary  for  the  plain- 
tiff" to  prove  these  negative  averments  must 
depend  upon  their  nature  and  character. 
"When  it  is  as  easy  for  the  plaintiff  to  prove 
the  negative  as  it  is  for  the  defendant  to  dis- 
prove it,  then  the  burthen  of  proof  must  rest 
upon  him.  *  *  *  But  when  the  means 
of  proving  the  negative  are  not  within  the 
power  of  the  plaintiff",  but  all  the  proof  on 
the  subject  is  within  the  control  of  the  de- 
fendant, who,  if  the  negative  is  not  true  can 
disprove  it  at  once,  then  the  law  presumes 
the  truth  of  the  negative  averment  from  the 
fact  that  the  defendant  withholds  or  does  not 
produce  the  proof  which  is  in  his  hands,  if  it 
exists,  that  the  negative  is  not  true.  *  *  * 
There  are  cases  between  these  extremes 
where  the  party  averring  the  negative  is  re- 
quired to  give  some  proof  to  establish  it. 
Indeed  it  is  not  easy  to  lay  down  a  general 
rule  by  which  it  may  be  readily  determined 
upon  which  party  the  burthen  of  proof  lies, 
when  a  negative  is  averred  in  pleading. 
Each  case  must  depend  upon  its  peculiar 
characteristics  and  cuurts  must  apply  practical 
common  sense  in  determining  the  question. 
"When  the  means  of  proving  the  tact  are 
equally  within  the  control  of  each  party  then 
the  burthen  of  proof  is  upon  the  party  aver- 
ring the  negative ;  but  when  the  opposite 
party  must,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  be  in 
possession  of  full  and  plenary  proof  to  dis- 
prove the  negative  averment,  and  the  other 
party  is  not  in  possession  of  such  proof,  then 
it  is  manifestly  just  and  reasonable  that  the 
party  thus  in  possession  of  the  proof  should 
be  required  to  advance  it,  or  upon  his  failurt 
to  do  so  we  must  presume  it  dues  not  exist, 
which  of  itself,  establishea  the  negative. 

JSIow  let  us  apply  that  law  to  the  case  in 


hand.  If  I  were  in  full  possession  of  all 
Prof.  Swing's  sermons  that  he  had  ever 
preached  within  this  period  of  five  years,  and 
I  came  into  this  court  affirming  that,  during 
that  period,  he  had  never  preached  these  car- 
dinal doctrines,  then,  according  to  that  deci- 
sion, it  would  be  necessary  for  me  to  make 
out  a  plenary  proof  of  the  case ;  but,  seeing 
that  if  anybody  is  in  possession  of  ability  to 
disprove  the  allegation.  Prof.  Swing  is,  be- 
cause all  the  sermons  he  has  ever  preached 
since  the  fire— as  has  been  admitted  on  the 
floor  of  this  house  in  testimony — are  still  in 
his  possession  in  manuscript,  and  seeing  I 
have  only  a  very  small  portion  of  them  in 
my  possession,  then  he,  having  it  in  his  power 
to  disprove  this  allegation,  I  am  to  be  con- 
sidered as  having  very  fairly  established  the 
negative,  until  he  produces  all  the  testimony 
relating  to  the  subject.  That  is  the  law. 
That  is  common  sense,  as  Judge  Caton  says, 
and  I  hope  it  will  appeal  to  us  in  this  body, 
although  we  do  not  profess  to  be  governed  by 
judicial  decisions  in  the  civil  courts.  Now, 
the  defense  seemed  to  recognize  that,  for  they 
came  in  here  with  a  view  of  disproving  this 
negation.  They  did  not  rest  quietly  and  say 
"  AVell,  you  have  made  your  averment,  now 
prove  it."  But  every  witness  they  put  on  the 
stand  was  put  therefor  the  purpose  of  counter- 
acting this  allegation.  Every  witness  they 
brought  here  was  for  the  purpose  of  proving 
that  Prof.  Swing  preached  these  doctrines,  for 
this  was  the  only  allegation  to  which  the  testi- 
mony was  presented  outside  of  the  sermons 
which  I  have  offered  in  evidence. 

Then  the  question  is  whether  they  have 
proved  that  Prof.  Swing  does  preach  the 
evangelical  doctrines.  This  averment  must 
hold  "as  proven  unless  they  have  proved  the 
contrary.  Have  they  done  it?  Let  us  see. 
They  produced  testimony.  The  elders  of  the 
church  were  called  to  testify,  and  they  did 
testify.  They  testified  that  3n  their  opinion, 
Prof.  Swing  preached  the  Go.-^pel.  They  tes- 
tified that,  in  their  opinion,  he  preached  the 
doctrine  of  the  Deity  of  Christ.  And  the 
value  of  their  opinion  can  be  determined 
when  I  tell  you  that,  in  proof  of  that,  they 
cite  one  of  the  very  passages  which  I  read 
yesterday  as  an  instance  of  Prof.  Swing's 
equivocation.  They  testified  that  Prof. 
Swl;.i;-  preached  the  doctrine  of  eternal  pun- 
ishment ;  and,  as  an  indication  of  the  value 
of  that  testimony,  let  me  remind  you  that  ihey 
cited  a  passage  which  I  read   yesterday   as  a 


92 


THE  TiUAL  OF  KEY.  DAVID  SWI^G. 


specimen  of  Prof.  Swing's  ambiguity.  They 
testified  that  Prof.  Swing  preached  all  the 
cardinal  doctrines  of  the  Bible,  and  when  I 
asked  them  where  they  were  preached,  and 
when  they  were  preached,  and  what  he  said, 
the  only  witness  who  could  say  anything 
about  it,  was  Mr.  Waite,  who  said  he  preach- 
ed a  sermon  on  Unitarianism,  at  a  period  be- 
fore the  time  specified  in  the  allegations,  or 
before  he  became  pastor  of  the  Fourth 
Church,  and  I  never  said  anything  to  the 
contrary.  The  only  testimony  which  point- 
ed at  the  specification  was  that  of  Mr.  Lee, 
who  read  passages  from  Prof.  Swing's  print- 
ed sermons.  And  the  fact  that  they  show  the 
printed  sermons  already  offered  in  evidence 
as  disproof  of  this  allegation,  would  seem  to. 
imply  that  they  oflered  the  very  best  they 
had ;  for,  sir,  if  I  were  on  trial  upon  the 
charge  that  I  did  not  preach  the  Gospel,  be- 
yond all  doubt  I  should  bring  the  very  best 
testimony  I  had  to  set  aside  the  allegation. 
This  gentleman  brought  a  few  sentences  from 
Prof.  Swing's  published  sermons,  which  have 
been  oflPered  in  evidence,  and  the  very  sen- 
tences quoted  in  disproof  of  the  allega- 
tion, were  the  sentences  I  relied  on  to  prove 
the  equivocal  character  of  his  preaching. 
We  do  not  wish  to  say  anything  unkind  or 
disparaging,  but  we  will  ask  whether  this 
court  will  allow,  that  testimony  which  simply 
expresses  the  opinion  that  Professor  Swing 
is  a  faithful  preacher  of  the  Gospel,  when  it 
is  ofifered  by  men  who  admit  upon  the  floor 
of  this  house,  and  in  testimony,  that  they 
regard  this  prosecution  as  an  attack  upon 
the  Fourth  Church,  and  upon  the  elders  of 
that  church,  can  be  regarded  as  conclusive. 

Now,  when  this  testimony  was  offered,  at 
the  very  earliest  moment,  as  soon  as  the 
foundation  had  been  laid  for  the  question, 
the  house  will  remember  that  I  asked  if 
the  sermons  preached  since  the  fire  were  in 
existence.  First,  I  asked  if  they  were  writ- 
ten sermons,  and  Mr.  Waite  said  "Yes ; 
why,  all  Mr.  Swing's  sermons  are  written 
sermons."  I  then  asked,  not  him  only,  but 
every  subsequent  witsess,  whether  these  ser- 
mons were  in  existence.  I  asked  the  counsel, 
and  he  distinctly  affirmed  that  they  were  in 
existence.  I  challenged  the  testimony.  I 
asked  the  court  to  set  aside  the  testimony. 
1  asked  the  court,  even  after  the  testimony 
had  been  given,  to  strike  it  out;  and  I  asked 
it  upon  the  recognized  principle  in  evidence 
that  the  best  testimony  in  every  case  must 


be  given  ;  and  now  I  ask,  what  is  the  best 
testimony  in  respect  to  the  character  of  a 
man's  preaching  ?  Would  you  be  willing 
to  take  the  statements  of  these  witnesses  as  to 
the  evangelical  character  of  his  sermons,  if 
the  sermons  themselves  could  be  had  ^ 

If  this  allegation  is  to  be  set  aside,  one 
would  think  that  the  sermons,  as  they  came 
from  his  pen,  would  be  submitted  to  this  body 
that  the  striking  passages  might  be  marked, 
and  that  the  distinctive  expositions  of  the 
doctrines  of  the  person  of  Christ,  and  re- 
generation by  the  Spirit,  might  be  set  before 
this  court  in  such  a  light  as  to  kill  the  alle- 
gation and  drive  that  part  of  it  out  of  court. 
Why  didn't  they  do  it?  Why,  sir,  I  asked  this 
court  to  set  aside  that  testimony,  and  I  am 
very  sorry  that  the  Presbytery  decided  as  it 
did.  No  doubt  their  opinion,  as  a  i  ule,isagreat 
deal  better  than  mine.  I  hope  I  shall  never 
be  led  to  say  anything  disrespectful  of  a  body 
so  venerable  as  this,  but,  with  all  the  great 
respect  I  have  for  it,  and  for  you,  Mr.  Mod- 
erator, arid  your  great  knowledge  and  good 
judgment,  I  do  think  you  were  mistaken  on 
that  question.  I  thought  at  the  time  I 
could  cite  the  laws  of  other  churches,  but 
they  would  not  hold  in  this  court;  and  I 
thought  I  could  cite  the  law  that  is  recog- 
nized in  all  nations  where  jurisprudence 
exists,  but  "  this  court  is  a  law  unto  itself," 
and  it  would  not  set  the  testimony  aside;  and 
if  it  had  not  been  for  Mr.  Forsythe,  I  might 
never  have  known  what  the  Presbyterian 
Church  believes  upon  this  point.  And  now 
I  am  going  to  tell  you. 

Why,  sir,  if  I  had  had  this  passage,  they 
would  have  set  aside  that  testimony  upon 
the  spot ;  and  I  am  going  to  put  it  in  my 
protest.  It  is  not  exactly  analogous,  but  the 
court  will  seize  upon  the  idea  that  the  Pres- 
byterian Church,  whenever  it  has  questions 
to  deal  with  involving  testimony,  has  recog- 
nized as  of  great  weight,  the  laws  regarding 
testimony,  as  laid  down  in  standard  books 
upon  this  subject. 

The  case  alleged  is  the  complaint  in  the 
case  of  Samuel  Lowrie,  found  on  page  560  of 
the  New  Digest. 

The  caption  reads  :  "  Parole  evidence  will 
not  supply  the  place  of  the  records."  I 
quote : 

This  assembly  are  of  the  opinion  that 
the  correct  mode  of  proceeding  for  the  last 
General  Assembly  would  have  been  to  have 
suspended  a  decision  on  the  appeal  until  the 
records  of  the  judicatories  should  have  been 


PROF.  PATTON'S  ARGUMENT. 


9S 


present,  because  the  rules  in  our  Form  of 
Government  prescribed  that,  before  a  judg- 
ment is  given,  all  the  proceedings  of  the  in- 
ferior judicatories  in  the  case  should  be  read, 
and  it  is  a  sound  viaxim,  generally  admitted  in 
courts  of  justice,  that  tlie  best  evidence  which 
the  case  admits  of  should,  be  required,  which  in 
all  trials  is  undoubtedly  the  record  of  the 
judicatory. 

I  called  for  the  manuscript.  The  manuscript 
is  in  existence.  The  sermons  preached  by 
Prof.  Swing  since  the  fire  are  all  in  his  house. 
He  could  bring  them  into  court  to-morrow. 
He  could  have  brought  them  into  court  when 
they  were  called  for.  I  submit,  that  if  it 
were  true  that  Prof.  Swing  has  preached  the 
doctrines  which  I  allege  he  does  not  preach, 
and  if  he  were  anxious — as  I  know  he  is 
anxious — to  disprove  these  allegations,  to  set 
my  complaint  adrift  and  turn  it  out  of  court, 
to  be  acquitted  at  the  hands  of  this  Presby- 
tery, to  be  recognized  by  this  body  as  still 
of  good  standing,  and  as  still  deserving  of  the 
confidence  of  this  court  and  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  he  would  have  brought  his  sermons, 
and  would  have  flung  defiance  in  the  face  of 
his  prosecutor,  by  presenting  his  written 
testimony,  and  saying,  "  There  it  is,  Mr.  Pro- 
secutor, staring  you  in  the  face  in  black  and 
white."  And  when  it  is  true  he  has  not  done 
it,  though  repeatedly  challenged  to  do  it,  it 
is  demonstration  that  he  cannot  do  it,  and 
that  the  allegation  is  true. 

I  will  pass  now  to  the  Sixth  Specification. 

He  declares  that  the  value  of  a  doctrine  is 
measured  by  the  ability  of  men  to  verify  it 
in  their  experience.  In  illustrating  this 
statement,  he  has  spoken  lightly  of  import- 
ant doctrines  of  the  Bible :  that  is  to  say 
that  in  a  sermon  entitled  "  Christianity  and 
Dogma,"  printed  in  the  volume  called 
"  Truths  for  To-Day,"  the  following  and 
similar  language  is  used  :  "  The  doctrines  of 
Christianity  are  those  which  may  be  tried  by 
the  human  heart."  "The  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  as  formally  stated,  cannot  be  expe- 
rienced. Man  has  not  the  power  to  taste  the 
one-ness  of  three  nor  the  three-ness  of  one, 
and  see  that  it  is  'good.'"  "  If  you,  my 
friend,  are  giving  your  daily  thought  to  the 
facts  of  Christianity,  and  are  standing  be- 
wildered to-day  amid  the  statements  of  sci- 
ence and  Genesis  about  earth,  or  its  swarms 
of  life,  recall  the  truth  that  your  soul  can- 
not taste  any  theory  of  man's  origin — cannot 
experience  the  origin  of  man,  whatever  that 
origin  may  have  been. 

This  statement  is  not  an  obiter  dictum  on 
the  part  of  Professor  Swing,  by  any  means. 
It  is  the  enunciation  of  a  principle  which 
peryades  his  preaching  and  which  gives 
color  to  his   theology.      Now  mark :      He 


does' not  say  that  a  doctrine  is  true  in  pro- 
portion as  you  can  verify  it.  If  he  had  said 
that  every  man  of  us  would  have  seen  that 
it  was  Kationalism.  But  what  does  he  say  ? 
He  says  that  doctrine  is  valuable  in  propor- 
tion as  you  can  verify  it  by  experience. 
Now,  sir,  you  may  fill  a  garret  with  theolo- 
gy, and  it  may  be  true  ;  but  of  what  use  is  it 
to  me  when  you  have  pronounced  that  it 
is  worthless?  And  when  Professor  Swing 
undertakes  to  set  up  his  subjective  standard 
as  the  test  of  the  value  of  a  doctrine,  then 
sir,  he  has  announced  a  principle  which, 
carried  out  to  its  logical  consequence,  lands 
you  in  scepticism.  He  says  you  cannot  veri- 
fy the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  in  your  expe- 
rience, and  therefore  "it  is  not  valuable. 
The  value  of  a  doctrine  depends  upon  your 
ability  to  verify  it."  That  principle  rules 
out  every  solitary  doctrine  of  Scripture 
which  is  mysterious.  You  cannot  verify  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  You  cannot  verify 
the  doctrine  of  Predestination.  You  cannot 
verify  the  doctrine  of  the  person  of  Christ. 
You  cannot  verify  the  doctrine  of  the  Origin 
of  man.  There  is  nothing  in  your  experi- 
ence to  tell  you  that  Qodi  a  priori  would  send 
his  Son  Jesus  Christ  to  die  as  a  substitute 
for  His  people.  What  doctrine  is  there  that 
can  be  verified  in  that  way  ? 

Prof.  Swing  may  be  pleased  to  limit  his 
list  of  exceptions  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity,  and  the  Origin  of  man ;  but  the  mo- 
ment he  makes  that  statement  he  opens  a 
door  which  he  cannot  shut  for  the  life  of 
him  ;  because  another  man  may  say,  "I  can- 
not verify  the  doctrine  of  the  Atonement." 
And  another  man  may  say,  "  I  cannot  verify 
the  doctrine  of  Eternal  Punishment;  and  I 
cannot  see  why  it  is  necessary  to  establish 
the  deity  of  Christ."  The  deity  of  Christ 
founded  upon  sentiment  1  If  you  found  the 
deity  of  Christ  upon  sentiment,  down  goes 
your  Christianity,  and  out  like  a  taper  goes 
the  Christian's  hope.  There  never  was  a 
statement  more  decidedly  rationalistic  than 
this  statement  of  Prof.  Swing ;  and  if  it 
were  the  only  one  in  the  book,  it  would  be 
enough  to  indicate  the  drift  of  his  mind,  and 
to  tell  you  he  is  not  a  safe  teacher  of  a  Pres- 
byterian flock. 

I  pass  to  the  next  specification.  It  is  the 
one  in  reference  to  Development.  This  court, 
I  hope,  will  consider  it  no  impertinence  if, 
for  the  sake  of  facility  in  argument,  and  for 
the  purpose  of  throwing  more  light  upon  the 


94 


THE  TRIAL  OF  EEV.  DAVID  SWING. 


specification,  I  go  out  of  mj-  way  a  little  to 
state,  in  substance,  what  the  doctrine  of  De- 
velopment is.  It  is  the  doctrine  in  philoso- 
phy which,  more  than  all  others,  challenges 
the  attention  of  the  Christian  student  and 
bids  defiance  to  the  Christian  church,  and 
the  historic  faith  of  the  Christian  disciple. 
It  is  the  philosophy  which  at  the  present  day 
is  assuming  a  position  of  paramount  author- 
ity. Applied  to  the  material  world,  the  doc- 
trine is,  that  all  the  forms  of  material  exist- 
ence have  developed  by  a  process  of  evolution 
from  the  original  ether — whatever  that  is. 
Applied  to  life  it  tells  us  that  the  higher  forms 
of  existence  have  come  through  successive 
transmutations  out  of  lower  forms  of  being. 
Applied  to  social  culture,  it  tells  us  that  man 
was  first  a  savage  and  that  religion  was  an  af- 
terthought ;  that  he  was  as  unable  at  one  time 
to  worship  God  as  he  was  to  build  a  fire  ; 
that  Christianity  is  as  much  the  outgrowth 
of  the  law  of  circumstances  as  is  steam  the 
natural  result  of  progress.  It  is  a  philoso- 
phy that  tells  us  that  man  was  at  one  time 
without  any  language,  and  that  voluble  as 
he  is  to-day,  at  one  time  he  could  not  speak. 
It  tells  us  that  man  first  worshipped  his 
grandfather,  and  then  he  worshipped  an 
animal,  and  then  he  worshipped  a  stick, 
and  then  from  Fetichism  he  went  to  Poly- 
theism, and  from  Polytheism  he  went  to 
Pantheism,  and  from  Pantheism  he  went  to 
Monotheism,  and  Monotheism  found  its  cul- 
minating point  in  Judaism,  and  it  is  Judaism, 
transformed  under  the  action  of  natural 
causes,  which  gives  us  the  Christianity  of  to- 
day. That  is  positive  philosophy ;  that  is 
the  development  hypothesis.  Now,  let  me 
read  these  passages  from  Professor  Swing, 
and  tell  me  if  you  would  not  infer  that  he 
had  been  sitting  at  the  feet  of  Buckle,  of 
Leckey,  of  Tylor  and  Lubbock,  when  he 
preached  this  sermon.  Tell  me  if  your  infer- 
ence would  not  be  that  he  entertained  the 
idea  that  man  was  first  a  savage;  that  he  did 
not  have  any  language  ;  that  his  position  to- 
day is  the  result  of  natural  causes,  and  that 
Christianity  of  to-day  is  just  an  outgrowth 
of  the  centuries.  Let  me  read  first  from 
Mr.  Tylor,  vi'ho  is  a  representative  man  on 
the  subject  of  culture,  looked  at  from  the 
standpoint  of  evolution.  In  his  last  work  I 
find  the  following  sentence,  which  Professor 
Swing  might  have  embodied  in  his  sermon 
without  any  danger  to  the  doctrine  or  anv 
detriment  to  the  context : 


Looking  at  each  doctrine  for  itself  and 
by  itself,  as  in  the  abstract  true  or  untrue, 
theologians  close  their  eyes  to  the  instan- 
ces which  history  is  ever  holding  up  before 
them,  that  one  phase  of  religious  belief  is 
the  outcome  of  another ;  that  in  all  times 
religion  has  included  within  its  limits 
a  system  of  philosophy  expressing  its  more 
or  less  transcendental  conceptions  in  doctrines 
which  form,  in  any  age,  their  fittest  represen- 
tatives, but  which  doctrines  are  liable  to 
modifications  in  the  general  course  of  intellect- 
ual change,  whether  the  ancient  formulas 
still  hold  their  authority  with  altered  mean- 
ing or  are  themselves  reformed  or  replaced. 

Mr.  Tylor  knows  very  well  that  churches 
do  drift  away  from  their  formulated  stand- 
ards. 

Now,  I  will  read  from  Sir  John  Lubbock, 
a  man  better  known  but  of  equal  authority 
— if  the  distinction  is  any  credit  to  him — page 
348,  of  his  book  entitled,  "The  Origin  of 
Civilization  and  the  Primitive  Condition  of 
Man."  When  I  read  Professor  Swing's 
sermon  on  the  ministry,  which  was  delivered 
at  the  installation  of  Dr.  Swazey,  mark 
what  he  says  when  he  speaks  of  man  becom- 
ing religious — as  if  he  lived  without  being 
religious.      Sir  John  says  : 

I  also  refer  to  the  non-existence  of  religion 
among  certain  savage  races,  and  as  the  duke 
correctly  observes,  I  argued  that  this  was 
probably  Iheir  primitive  condition,  because 
it  is  difficult  to  believe  that  a  people  who 
had  once  possessed  a  religion  would  ever  en- 
tirely lose  it. 

Now,  what  does  he  hold  on  this  subject,  in 
brief?     Page  349. 

The  lowest  savages  have  no  idea  of  a  deity 
at  all.  Men  slightly  more  advanced  regard 
Him  as  an  enemy  to  be  dreaded,  but  who 
/nay  be  resisted  with  a  fair  prospect  of  suc- 
cess, who  may  be  cheated  by  the  cunning 
and  defied  by  the  strong.  *  *  As 
tribes  advance  in  civilization  their  deities 
advance  in  dignity,  but  their  power  is  still 
limited;  one  governs  the  sea,  another  the 
land  ;  one  reigns  over  the  plains,  another 
among    the   mountains.  *  *  But 

few  races  have  arrived  at  the  idea  of  an  om- 
nipotent and  beneficent  Deity. 

Now,  it  is  interesting  to  know  what  Sir 
John  Lubbock  thinks  of  Adam,  because 
Professor  Swing  speaks  of  Adam,  and  goes 
back  to  the  time  when  he  did  not  have  any 
virtue,  and  did  not  have  any  knowledge. 
On  page  361  he  says  : 

The  duke  appears  to  consider  that  the  first 
men,  though  deficient  in  knowledge  of  the 
mechanical  arts,  were  morally  and  intellectu- 
ally superior,  or  at  least  equal  to,  those  of 
the  present  day  ;  and  it  is  remarkable  that 
supporting  such  a  view  he  should  regard 
himself  as  a  champion  of  orthodoxy.     Adam 


PROF.  PATTON'S  ARGUMENT. 


95 


is  represented  to  us  in  Genesis  not  only  as 
naked  and  subsequently  clothed  with  leaves, 
but  as  unable  to  resist  the  most  trivial  temp- 
tation, and  as  entertaining  very  gross  and 
anthropomorphic  conceptions  of  the  Diiity. 
In  fact,  in  all  these  characteristics — in  his 
mode  of  life,  in  his  moral  conditions,  and  in 
his  intellectual  conceptions — Adam  was  a 
typical  savage. 

That  is  putting  it  rather  strong.  Now  I 
will  read  the  passages  in  this  allegation, 
and  I  wish  you  to  understand  I  do  not 
charge  Prof.  Swing  with  holding  the  doctrine 
of  evolution.  I  do  not  charge  that  this  ex- 
presses his  creed — I  hope  it  does  not.  "What 
I  am  affirming  is,  that  any  impartial  reader, 
any  one  who  did  not  give  him  the  benefit  of 
the  presumption  that  he  is  an  orthodox  man 
because  he  has  taken  the  ordination  vows  im- 
posed by  the  Presbyterian  church,  would 
suppose  that  he  had  been  in  conversation 
with  Sir  John  Lubbock,  and  had  been  sitting 
at  the  feet  of  this  evolutionist  Gamaliel. 

Now  I  read  "  The  low  idolatry  of  primitive 
man  " — I  did  not  know  what  he  meant  by 
low  idolatry  at  first,  and  I  asked  him  through 
TlLe  Literior,  if  he  did  not  entertain  the  ideas 
of  evolution  why  he  persisted  in  using  the 
terminology  of  evolutionists,  and  he  turned 
round  and  asked  me  whether  I  would  prefer 
him  to  say  "Adam  "  instead  of  "  primitive 
man;"  and  he  simply  furnished  me  the  conlu- 
sion  of  the  syllogism,  that  primitive  man 
was  an  idolater,  and  that  primitive  man  was 
Adam.     Then  I  read  again  : 

The  Mosaic  economy  was  nothing  else  but 
a  progress — earth  had  come  to  Polytheism, 
to  Pantheism,  to  Feticism.  It  was  the 
Hebrew  philosophy,  and  its  immediate  result 
— Christianity  which  swept  away  the  iron 
Jupiter,  etc. 

Now,  to  any  unprejudiced  mind,  or 
to  the  mind  of  any  one  who  has  any  ac- 
quaintance with  the  style  of  thought  of  these 
evolutionist  teachers,  it  would  be  evident  that 
Prof.  Swing  teaches  that  Christianity  came 
up  out  of  Judaism  as  Judaism  came  up  out 
of  Polytheism,  and  Monotheism,  and  Petich- 
ism.  He  may  not  mean  that,  but  he  had 
two  thousand  or  more  people  listening  to  him 
and  of  them  many  are  men  of  culture,  and 
who  read  books,  and  who  would  put  what  he 
said  alongside  of  what  they  read  from  Sir 
John  Lubbock,  and  if  they  would  come  to 
the  conclusion  that  Sir  John  Lubbock  and 
Prof.  Swing  were  first  cousins,  theologically 
speaking,  they  would  not  do  Prof.  Swing  any 
great  injustice.     Now  I  read  again  : 

This  multitude  measures  a  great  revelation 


of  God,  above  that  day  when  earth  possessed 
but  one  man  or  family,  and  that  one  without 
language. 

Adam  couldn't  talk,  although  he  named 
the  animals,  and  he  did  not  know  the  com- 
mon decencies  of  life,  although  our  Confession 
of  Faith  says  that  "  after  God  had  created  all 
other  creatures,  He  created  man,  male  and 
female,  with  reasonable  and  immortal  souls, 
endued  with  knowledge,'  righteousness  and 
true  holiness,  after  his  own  image,  having  the 
law  of  God  written  in  their  hearts,  and  power 
to  fulfill  it;  and  yet,  under  a  possibility  of 
transgressing,  being  left  to  the  liberty  of  their 
own  will,  which  was  subject  unto  change." 

These  sentences  correspond.  They  are  ex- 
actly alike.  You  would  read  Prof.  Swing 
and  then  read  the  Confession  of  Faith,  and 
you  would  say  he  is  in  exact  accord  with  it. 
You  would  say  that  he  and  Moses  entertained 
the  same  opinions  upon  this  question,  and 
you  would  say  that  when  God  made  man  he 
made  him  so  that  he  could  not  talk,  and  that 
he  had  no  knowledge ;  and  that  Adam  and 
Eve  were  in  the  Garden  and  didn't  know 
how  to  communicate  with  each  other. 

I  declare  that  a  Presbyterian  minister, 
knowing  that  God  made  man,  male  and  fe- 
male, and  that  "  in  Adam's  fall  we  sinned 
all,"  and  that  our  whole  system  of  theology 
grounds  itself  in  the  fact  that  Adam  sinned 
against  God  by  eating  the  fruit  of  the  forbid- 
den tree,  has  no  right  to  talk  of  the  time 
when  there  was  only  one  man  who  had  no 
virtue  and  no  knowledge. 

Now,  I  want  Prof.  Swing  to  tell  us  what 
he  means  ;  whether  he  accepts  the  naked  fact 
stated  in  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis,  and  the 
fact  that  God  did  make  one  man  and  one 
woman',  and  that  the  whole  human  race  has 
grown  out  of  them,  and  that  the  destiny 
of  the  race  is  as  much  representatively  relat- 
ed to  them  as  the  Christian  world  is  repre- 
sentatively related  to  Christ. 

I  will  read  another  passage.  I  have  heard 
there  is  one  member  in  this  house  who  knows 
what  all  these  passages  mean,  and  I  am 
going  to  employ  him  for  a  week  as  an  inter- 
preter if  I  don't  get  light  any  where  else. 
What  does  this  passage  mean  in  the  same 
specification  ?  "  The  Bible  has  not  made  re- 
ligion, but  religion  and  righteousness  have 
made  the  Bible."  Well,  I  thought  God 
made  the  Bible.  "  Christianity  is  not  forced 
upon  us."  Who  ever  said  it  was?  "  Our 
nature  has  forced  it  up   out  of  the   spirit's 


96 


THE  TPvIAL  OF  REV.  DAVID  SWING. 


rich  depths."  There  is  a  conundrum.  If 
you  can  harmonize  that  with  Christianity,  I 
■will  go  through  the  Vedas  and  harmonize 
them  with  Christianity  ;  or  I  will  take  Con- 
fucius and  make  him  acknowledge  the 
Gospel  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  You  can- 
not do  it.  That  may  be  a  lapsus  lingum  or  a 
lapsus  pennce,  but  it  was  an  unfortunate  ex- 
pression and  it  ought  to  be  taken  back.  As 
it  stands  it  teaches  heresy.  It  teaches  that 
Christianity  is  the  outgrowth  of  Judaism,  as 
Judaism,  according  to  the  evolutionists,  is 
the  outgrowth  of  Monotheism,  Polytheism, 
and  Petiehism. 

Now,  I  believe  in  anything  else  than  de- 
velopment. I  do  not  believe  a  particle  in  it. 
I  believe  that  God  made  the  world,  and  that 
he  made  man  by  a  direct  fiat,  and  also  that 
he  made  every  species ;  and  I  believe  that 
man  never  developed  except  downwards ; 
and  I  believe  that  all  the  upward  development 
which  takes  place  is  when  God's  Spirit  comes 
into  a  man's  heart,  plants  the  germ  of  holi- 
ness there,  fosters  it,  and  makes  it  grow  there 
in  virtue  of  the  means  of  grace,  which  in  our 
Catechism  are  called  the  Word,  Sacraments, 
and  Prayer.  It  is  a  development  in  the 
direction  of  holiness  and  by  the  direct  exer- 
cise of  God's  Holy  Spirit ;  and  as  for  Chris- 
tianity being  the  outgrowth  of  circumstances, 
or  the  transformation  of  Jewish  theology, 
it  is  no  such  thing.  It  is  just  God  Almighty 
coming  down  to  earth  in  the  form  of  Jesus 
Christ,  living,  dying,  and  rising  again  from 
the  dead,  and  setting  in  exercise  a  set  of 
forces  of  which  Christianity  is  the  direct  out- 
growth. Does  Prof.  Swing  believe  that  ?  If 
he  does  let  him  say  so. 

The  Bible  says  God  made  man  in  his  own 
image.  Now,  if  God  made  man  in  his  own 
image,  I  believe  that  you  will  agree  with  me 
that  when  man  was  made  in  the  image  of 
God,  he  reflected  the  perfections  of  God; 
because  the  two  expressions  are  synonymous. 
If  Adam  was  simply  a  duplicate  of  God,  so 
far  as  finite  being  could  be,  then  for  a  man 
to  say  that  God,  in  the  first  human  being, 
could  no  more  display  his  perfections  than  a 
musician  like  Mozart  could  unfold  his  genius 
to  an  infant  or  to  a  South  Sea  Islander,  is  to 
tell  Moses,  with  all  due  respect,  that  he  did 
not  tell  the  truth.  That  is  what  it  is,  for 
Moses  said,  and  the  Apostles  said  after  him, 
that  God  did  make  man  in  his  own  image. 
And  I  believe  that.  And  I  boli  ve  that 
Adam  was  a  great  deal  more  like  God  than 


I  am  going  to  be  for  some  time  to  come  ;  and 
as  for  the  nineteenth  century  displaying  the 
perfection  of  God  more  than  Adam  did,  it  is 
an  outrage  upon  common  sense.  Now,  I 
want  an  explanation  of  that  sentence. 

Prof.  Swing. — May  I  ask  a  question  ? 

Prof.  Paiton. — Certainly. 

Prof.  Swing. — Do  you  think  Adam  had 
any  missionary  societies  or  any  asylums  of 
any  kind  to  glorify  God  with  ? 

Prof.  Patton. — There  wasn't  anybody  to 
go  to.     There  weren't  any  heathen. 

I  now  pass  to  the  seventh  specification, 
and  I  will  read  a  portion,  of  a  sermon  enti- 
tled "  Influence  of  Democracy  on  Christi- 
anity." In  it  I  find  passages,  which,  if 
they  have  any  meaning,  teach  us  that  there 
are  no  standards  by  which  we  can  measure 
the  eternal  verities  ;  by  which  we  can  meas- 
ure moral  ideas  ;  that  moral  ideas  are  liable 
to  change,  and  are  subject  to  the  laws  inci- 
dent to  all  human  things.  If  there  is  any  one 
hope  that  I  cherish,  it  is  that  Prof.  Swing  is 
better  than  his  preaching.  I  have  said  this  in 
print,  and  I  have  never  said  it  inunkindness. 
I  have  said  in  the  very  depths  of  sincerity — 
that  I  do  honestly  hope  his  creed  is  better 
than  his  expression  of  it ;  but  sir,  I  must  deal 
with  the  expressions  that  come  from  his  lips. 
What  he  may  believe  esoterically  is  one  thing  ; 
what  he  teaches  exoterically  is  what  we  are 
dealing  with.  Bear  that  in  mind.  Now,  sup- 
pose, a  minister  of  the  Presbyterian  church 
stands  in  his  pulpit  and  in  the  presence  of  peo- 
ple who  are  accustomed  to  regard  the  Bible  as 
a  settled  revelation,  as  giving  us  an  infallible 
rule  of  faith  and  practice,  who  are  in  the 
habit  of  regarding  the  Confession  of  Faith 
as  embodying  the  system  taught  in  the  Word 
of  God,  and  who  believe  that  the  doctrines 
taught  there  are  true,  what  would  be  the  im- 
pression produced  by  such  expressions  as 
this? 

Now;  this  is  what  I  mean  by  the  elasticity 
of  the  moral  idea.  These  notions  are  en- 
larged or  contracted  according  to  the  genius 
of  the  generation  that  comes  to  them  here  or 
there.  All  moral  ideas,  from  the  conception 
of  God  to  the  most  humble  duty,  all  doctrines, 
from  faith,  hope  and  charity,  to  the  notions 
of  heaven  and  tell,  suffer  or  undergo  this 
sliding  form  of  measurement — and  baffle 
all  attempts  to  render  a  final  and  exact  expres- 
sion. They  are  infinite  in  the  mathematical 
sense  of  the  term. 

I  tell  you  I  can  set  my  moral  watch  by  the 
sun  of  righteousness,  and  I  know  it  will  go 
right.     I  can  go  and  find  a  measurement  of 


PKOr.  PATTON'S  AKGUMENT. 


97 


moral  ideas  in  God's  Word  and  we  know 
there  is  the  standard. 

This  perpetual  industry  amid  external  pur- 
suits, also  diverts  the  mind  from  the  study 
of  mysteries,  to  the  acceptance  and  enjoy- 
ment of  facts,  and  hence  the  public  mind 
turns  away  from  predestination  and  repro- 
bation and  absolutism,  not  simply  because 
it  has  developed  a  consciousness  of  freedom 
but  also  because  in  the  long  association  with 
facts  it  has  lost  love  for  the  study  of  the 
incomprehensible  in  both  religion  and  phi- 
losophy. 

"Freedom" — what  does  that  mean  ?  It 
means  that  having  developed  a  consciousness 
of  freedom  it  is  perfectly  proper  to  turn 
away  from  these  doctrines,  for  if  it  had  not 
developed  this  consciousness  of  freedom,  it 
would  still  have  believed  these  doctrines  ;  in 
other  words,  that  a  consciousness  of  free- 
dom is  incompatible  with  the  belief  in  the 
doctrines  ;  in  other  words,  that  predestination 
and  free  agency  contradict  each  other.  Do 
you  believe  that  ?  I  do  not ;  nor  does  the 
Presbyterian  Church. 

In  this  casting  off  of  old  garments,  it  no 
more  cheerfully  throws  away  tlie  inconceiv- 
able of  Christianity  than  the  inconceivable 
of  Kant  and  Spinoza.  In  this  abandonment 
there  is  no  charge  of  falsehood  cast  upon  the 
old  mysteries — they  may  or  may  not  be  true 
— there  is  only  a  passing  them  by  as  not  be- 
ing in  the  line  of  the  current  wish  or  taste, 
raiment  for  a  past  age,  perhaps  for  a  future, 
but  not  acceptible  for  the  present. 

You  may,  my  friends,  at  your  leisure,  seek 
and  find  further  instances  of  this  modifica- 
tion of  Christian  belief.  This  is  a  very 
suggestive  sermon.  It  does  not  exhaust  the 
whole  subject.  He  has  dropped  predestina- 
tion very  cheerfully,  but  not  any  more  cheer- 
fully than  he  has  dropped  the  pantheism  of 
Spinoza,  and  now  he  furnishes  an  idea  that 
will  germinate  when  you  go  home  ;  and  he 
says : 

When  you  go  home  and  sit  down  at  your 
leisure,  j'ou  will  find,  perhaps,  tliat  there  are 
other  instances  of  this  modification  of  Chris- 
tian belief  by  the  new  surroundings  of  gov- 
ernment. 

This  is  a  big  city,  and  we  have  a  Pa- 
cific railroad,  and  it  is  not  to  be  supposed 
that  Chicago  is  going  to  have  these  old  doc- 
trines. It  is  a  new  city.  "Christian  cus- 
toms will  always  be  modified  along  with  the 
creed."  [He  takes  it  for  granted  that  the 
creed  will  be  modified ;  the  only  question 
is  whether  the  customs  will.]  "Not  that 
something  absolutely  better  will  always  be 
found;"  [you  may  get  out  of  the  frying- 
pan   into   the  fire,  theologically   speaking,] 


"but  something  more  demanded  by  the  acci- 
dents of  time.'' 

Now,  if  I  were  a  hearer  of  that  sermon, 
and  were  to  carry  its  teachings  to  their  logi- 
cal consequence,  I  should  say  we  are  not  go- 
ing to  believe  in  the  doctrine  of  eternal 
punishment.  It  may  be  true  but  it  is  not  con- 
venient. We  are  going  to  pass  it  by,  be- 
cause it  is  a  remnant  of  another  age,  and 
Chicago  is  not  going  to  believe  anything  that 
will  disturb  our  feelings. 

In  this  republic  of  equality,  that  places 
the  rich  and  the  poor  [you  know  who 
Tom.  Paine  was]  the  laborer  and  the  cler- 
gyman upon  one  plane  the  whole  language 
of  abuse  and  denunciation  has  been  banished 
from  the  sacred  desk,  so  that  Thomas  Paine, 
if  he  were  now  alive,  would  enjoy  the  un- 
dreamed of  pleasure. 

He  has  a  good  word  to  say  for  Voltaire  in 
another  sermon,  and  now  he  says  : 

In  this  rise  and  fall  of  ideas  it  is  not  very 
wonderful  that  we  perceive  no  great  commo- 
tion, and  nowhere  in  ortliodox  denomina- 
tions perceive  any  arraignment  of  indi- 
viduals for  departures  from  the  faith.  This 
absence  of  trials  for  heresy  comes,  not  simply 
from  the  fact  that  there  is  little  heresy  in  the 
case,  for  tliis  lias  never  been  an  influential 
fact,  but  this  wide  and  deep  peace  comes 
from  two  other  facts,  first,  that  the  age  bears 
all  its  ministry  toward  the  essential  ideas 
and  absorbs  tliem  at  those  points;  and,  sec- 
ond, that  so  far  as  there  are  any  new  depar-. 
tures  they  are  universal  rather  than  indi- 
vidual. If  they  were  the  new  departures  of 
one  man  there  would  be  trial  and  discord,  but 
they  are  the  modifications  of  a  whole  genera- 
tion, rather  than  the  light  of  any  individual. 
Whatever  there  is  of  the  new  in  the  present 
it  has  come  to  all  equally  and  gently  as  the 
dew  in  the  night.  The  jury  is  particeps 
crinmiis  in  the  great  case. 

Mr.  Moderator,  this  Presbytery  will  have 
its  own  judgment  to  form  in  reference  to  these 
facts.  It  will  be  the  province  of  this  Pres- 
bytery to  say  whether  Prof.  Swing  is  or  is 
not  in  accord  with  the  Confession  of  Faith, 
and  whether  if,  having  departed  from  the  stan- 
dards of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  he  still 
shall  have  a  right  to  minister  at  her  altar, 
and  be  recognized  as  in  good  and  regular 
standing.  I  tell  you  the  time  is  coming 
when  you  will  say  if  you  affirm  this  that 
you  were  wrong.  The  time  is  coming,  sir, 
when  the  ministers  o'.'  this  city  will  find  their 
own  influence  undermined  by  the  influence 
of  such  preaching  as  this. 

You  remember  the  story  in  classic  times 
of  Penelope.  How  that  when  waiting  for  the 
long-looked  for  Ulysses,  and  pressed  by 
suitors  all  the  time,  she  postponed  the  act  of 


THE  TRIAL  OF  KEY.  DAVID  SWING. 


acceptance  of  a  favored  one,  giving  as  her 
excuse,  that  she  would  accept  him  when  she 
should  have  finished  a  certain  Aveb  on  which 
she  was  engaged  ;  and  how  that  she  wove  in 
the  daytime,  and  unravelled  in  the  night 
what  she  had  done  in  the  day. 

You,  Mr.  Moderator,  and  ministers  of  the 
Presbytery  of  Chicago,  are  the  Penelope  of 
tlie  daytime,  and  Prof.  Swing,  in  your  city, 
is  the  Penelope  of  the  night.  You  are  teach- 
ing doctrines  which  be  is  decrying.  You 
planting  yourselves  upon  these  time-honored 
standards,  maintaining  them  in  the  face  of  a 
godless  and  scoffing  world,  and  he  standing 
in  your  presence  to  tell  you  that  he  has  drifted 
away  from  them,  and  by  his  adroitness  and 
his  flexibility  of  language,  and  skill  in  ar- 
rangement of  his  thoughts,  persuades  his 
people  that  he  is  still  in  sympathy  with  the 
great  doctrines  of  our  faith. 

Mark  me:  The  time  is  coming  when  you 
will  say  that  the  prosecution  in  this  case  was 
right,  and  I  will  wait  for  a  century,  if  need 
be,  for  my  vindication. 

I  pass  to  the  ninth  specification.  It  is  on 
the  subject  of  a  Modal  Trinity.  I  have  two 
objections  to  ofter  to  that  statement.  In  the 
first  place  Prof.  Swing  has  used  the  oppor- 
tunity of  his  pulpit  for  giving  circulation  to 
the  greatest  of  all  objections,  and  the  most 
popular  objection  against  the  Church  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity. 

If  you  ask  a  Unitarian  why  he  is  not  a 
Trinitarian,  what  will  he  say?  "Why,  he 
would  say  you  Presbyterians  believe  in  a  con- 
tradiction ;  you  believe  that  one  is  three,  and 
that  three  are  one,  and  that  is  nonsense. 
Prof.  Swing  does  not  say  categorically  that 
three  cannot  be  one,  or  one  three,  but  he  does 
ridicule  the  idea  that  three  can  be  one,  and 
one  three.  He  has  given  his  public  approval 
to  the  doctrine  of  a  Modal  Trinity,  and  a 
Modal  Trinity  is  not  the  Trinity  which  is 
taught  in  the  standards  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  which  was  formulated  at  the  Coun- 
cil of  Nice ;  which  is  held  by  the  Pvoman 
Catholic  Church,  and  which  is  held  by  the 
Greek  Church,  and  by  the  great  mass  of 
Protestant  Christendom.  It  is  not  the 
Trinity  of  the  Bible,  and  it  is  not  the  Trinity 
of  the  Gospel. 

Now,  what  is  the  Trinity?  The  Trinity 
is  just  this:  In  the  first  place,  we  believe 
in  one  God.  That  is  the  first  factor  in  the 
doctrine.  In  the  second  place,  we  believe 
that  the  Father  is  God,  that  the  Son  is  God, 


and  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  God.  That  13 
the  second  factor  in  the  doctrine.  Now,  the 
great  problem  of  the  world  on  the  question 
of  the  Trinity  is  to  combine  these  two  factors. 
And  there  are  just  two  ways  in  which  they 
can  be  combined.  One  way  is  truth  and 
the  other  way  is  error. 

Professor  Swing  gives  his  sanction  to  error, 
and  the  Presbyterian  church  holds  to  truth. 
The  error  is  Sabellianism,  the  truth  is  Ath- 
anasianism.  When  Athanasius  stood  before 
the  representatives  of  Christendom,  he  was 
defending  the  doctrine  which  we  wish  to 
speak  for  to-day.  What  is  _Sabellianism  ? 
That  the  Father  is  God,  that  the  Son  is  God, 
and  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  God,  in  such  a 
sense  that  the  same  God  appears  at  one  time 
and  in  one  place  as  Father,  and  at  another 
time,  and  under  other  circumstances  as  Son, 
and  at  still  another  time,  and  under  other 
circumstances,  as  the  Holj'  Ghost;  just  as  a 
man  may  be  a  deacon  in  the  church,  in  one 
place,  and  as  a  judge  on  the  bench  in  another, 
and  a  general  in  the  army  in  another. 
Is  that  the  doctrine  of  our  church  ?  No, 
and  v/e  cannot  accept  Sabellianism ;  for, 
while  it  is  true  that  there  is  one  God ;  that 
the  Father,  and  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost 
is  God,  the  relations  between  the  Father, 
Son  and  Holy  Ghost  are  such  that  the 
Son  can  speak  to  the  Father,  as  difiTer- 
ent.  from  himself,  and  the  Holy  Ghost 
can '  proceed  from  the  Father,  and  from 
the  Son  as  difi'erent  from  both.  Pro- 
fessor Swing  teaches  that  the  Father,  Son 
and  Holy  Ghost  are  three  diflerent  offices 
of  the  one  God,  and  in  doing  so  he  is  conti'o- 
verting,  and  contravening  the  doctrine  of 
our  standards,  which  is,  that  there  are  three 
persons  in  the  Godhead,  and  these  three  are  one 
God ;  the  same  in  substance,  equal  in  power 
and  glory.  It  is  a  great  deal  older  than  the 
Westminster  Confession.  It  goes  back  to  the 
time  when  the  three  hundred  Bishops  sat  in 
council  at  Nice,  and  formulated  this  faith. 
And  this  Presbytery  is  called  upon  in  defense 
of  our  ancient  faith,  and  in  duty  to  our  Di- 
vine Master,  to  disclaim  the  expressions  of  a 
man  who  teaches  Sabellianism  in  the  Pres- 
byterian church. 

I  pass  to  the  tenth  specification,  and  it  is  a 
sermon  entitled  "  Positive  Eeligion  "  that  I 
refer  to.  I  wish  to  do  Prof.  Swing  the  j  ustice 
to  say  that  this  sermon,  so  far  as  it  teaches 
false  doctrine,  does  not  teach  it  in  the  in- 
terests of  Atheism,  does  not  teach  it  inten- 


PKOF.  PATTON'S  ARGUMENT. 


99 


lionally  in  the  interest  of  error  ;  but  inten- 
tionally or  not,  it  does  teach  error,  and  that 
is  the  point  I  wish  to  press.  The  object  of 
this  sermon,  "  Positive  Religion,"  is  to  con- 
struct an  argument  against  the  negative 
tendencies  of  the  times  ;  an  argument  which 
shall  persuade  men  that,  notwithstanding 
what  rationalists  may  say,  religion  is 
worth  having.  And  it  is  his  mode  of  con- 
structing his  argument  and  the  necessary 
efiects  which  follow,  against  which  I  wish  to 
Bpeak,  and  to  protest. 

What  does  he  say  ?  I  will  read  from  page 
189.  "  When  logic  informs  you  and  me  that 
God  is  a  law  or  a  wide  spread  blind  agency, 
let  us  not  be  deceived,  for  all  it  has  done  is 
to  take  away  our  God."  What  is  the  infer- 
ence ?  That  logic  can  take  away  our  God ; 
that  we,  logically  speaking,  may  have  no 
good  reason  to  believe  in  God,  that,  driven 
by  logical  inferences  we  should  land  in  skep- 
ticism.    He  says : 

Perfect  assurance  is  just  as  impossible  to  a 
free  religionist  or  Atheist,  as  it  is  to  the 
Christian.  Remembering  therefore,  that 
there  is  no  moral  idea  of  beauty  or  love,  or  love 
that  may  not  be  denied,  and  remembering  too 
that  the  assurance  that  there  is  a  God  is 
always  logically  equal  to  the  opposite  belief, 
why  should  he  not  abandon  a  criticism  that 
only  destroys  and  clasps  to  our  souls  the 
grand  things  we  possess,  and  Christlike,  live 
not  to  destroy,  but  to  fulfill. 

Now,  I  repeat  I  am  not  making  charges 
against  Prof.  Swing  of  any  intentional  dis- 
paragement of  the  doctrine  of  the  being  of 
God,  I  simply  take  that  sentence  and  construe 
it  in  a  plain  and  obvious  sense,  and  if  you  will 
read  it,  you  will  find  that  the  logic  of  it  is  this: 
The  arguments  for  the  being  of  God,  and  the 
arguments  against  the  being  of  God  balance 
each  other.  If  an  Atheist  comes  to  you  and 
says  that  logically  he  finds  no  good  reason 
for  believing  in  God,  you  turn  right  around 
and  say  "we  have  just  as  good  reason  for  be- 
lieving in  God,  as  you  have  for  not  believing 
in  God.  They  balance  each  other  equally. 
Now  what  turns  the  scale  on  the  side  of 
Theism,  is  the  fact  that  if  you  take  religion 
out  of  the  world,  you  deprive  it  of  all  the 
joys  and  hopes  of  this  world,  and  of  all  the 
joys  and  hopes  of  the  life  to  come.  Now, 
that  is  not  the  position  for  a  Christian  to 
take.  But  that  is  not  the  only  thing  he  says. 
Turn  to  page  138 — and  this  is  a  sentence 
which  I  really  do  not  understand,  except  in 
the  sense  that  itis  not  in  accordance  with  what 
we  believe  in  respect  to  the  existence  of  a 


Supreme  Being.  If  I  had  read  this  in  Mat- 
thew Arnold, — if  I  had  just  come  from  the 
study  of  Matthew  Arnold's  St.  Paul  and 
Protestantism  ;  remembering  his  idea  that  a 
belief  in  a  personal  God  is  the  great  fallacy 
of  the  world,  then  I  should  have  understood 
what  was  implied  in  this  sentence ;  for  I 
know  Matthew  Arnold,  and  I  know  he  is  an 
Atheist ;  and  I  mean  by  an  Atheist  a  man 
who  does  not  believe  in  a  personal  God. 
Matthew  Arnold  does  not  believe  in  a  per- 
sonal God,  and  Matthew  Arnold's  book  is 
full  of  just  such  doctrine  as  you  find  in 
Prof.  Swing's  sermon.  Mr.  Swing  says: 
"  We  know  not  what  nor  v/here  is  our  God, 
our  Heaven."  I  affirm  we  do  know  where  God 
is,  for  he  is  everywhere.  I  afiirm,  we  do 
know  what  God  is,  because  he  is  a  Spirit,  in- 
finite, eternal  and  unchangeable  is  His  wis- 
dom, power,  holiness,  justice,  goodness  and 
and  truth,  and  I  am  surprised  that  in  this 
nineteenth  century  this  Gospel  of  Nescience 
should  be  proclaimed,  and  a  man  should  rise 
in  his  pulpit  and  invite  his  congregation  to 
worship  at  the  altar  of  an  unknown  God. 

Now  in  respect  to  baptism,  I  will  read  to 
you  what  our  Symbols  say  upon  the  sacra- 
ments in  general,  and  the  sacrament  of  bap- 
tism in  particular.     Chapters  27  and  28. 

Sacraments  are  holy  signs  and  seals  of  the 
covenant  of  grace,  immediately  instituted 
by  God,  to  represent  Christ  and  his  benefits, 
and  to  confirm  our  interest  in  him  :  as  also  to 
put  a  visible  diflercnce  between  those  that 
belong  unto  the  church,  and  the  rest  of  the 
world ;  and  solemnly  to  engage  them  to  the 
service  of  God  in  Christ,  according  to  his 
word. 

There  is  in  every  sacrament  a  spiritual  re- 
lation or  sacramental  union,  between  the 
sign  and  the  thing  signified  ;  whence  it  comes 
to  pass,  that  the  names  and  efl'ects  of  the  one 
are  attributed  to  the  other. 

The  grace  which  is  exhibited  in  or  by  the 
sacraments,  rightly  used,  is  not  conferred  by 
any  power  in  them  ;  neither  doth  the  efficacj' 
of  a  sacrament  depend  upon  the  piety  or  in- 
tention of  him  that  doth  administer  it,  but 
upon  the  work  of  the  Spirit,  and  the  word  of 
institution,  which  contains,  together  with  a 
precept  authorizing  the  use  thereof,  a  promise 
of  benefit  to  worthy  receivers. 

Baptism  is  a  sacrament  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, ordained  by  Jesus  Christ,  not  only  for 
the  solemn  admission  of  the  party  baptized 
into  the  visible  church,  but  also  to  be  unto 
him  a  sign  and  seal  of  the  covenant  of  grace, 
of  his  ingrafting  into  Christ,  of  regenera- 
tion, of  remission  of  sins,  and  of  his  giving 
up  unto  God,  through  Jesus  Christ,  to  walk 
in  newness  of  life:  which  sacrament  is,  by 
Christ's  own  ai)puintmcnt,  to  be  continued 
in  his  church  until  the  end  of  the  world. 


100 


THE  TEIAL  OF  KEY.  DAVID  SWING. 


Although  it  be  a  great  sin  to  contemn  or 
neglect  this  ordinance,  yet  grace  and  salva- 
tion are  not  so  inseparably  annexed  unto  it, 
as  that  no  person  can  be  regenerated  or  saved 
without  it,  or  that  all  that  are  baptized,  are 
undoubtedly  regenerated. 

There  can  be  no  question  that  in  one  sense 
of  the  word,  our  church  does  attach  a  great 
deal  of  importance  to  baptism.  Now  I  ask 
you  to  read  with  me  this  passage  and  see 
whether  Prof.  Swing  recognizes  the  solemni- 
ty or  importance  of  baptism.  You  remem- 
ber one  or  two  passages  in  which  he  spoke 
of  infant  baptism,  the  prayer-book  and  the 
surplice,  as  things  below  price. 

I  quote  from  a  sermon  entitled,  "A  Reli- 
gion of  Words." 

Then  came  the  days  that  brought  God  an 
offering  of  words.  Imagining  Him  to  be  a 
God  of  articles  and  forms,  they  repeated 
thousands  of  words  and  baptized  their  guilty 
foreheads  in  much  or  little  water  as  an  act  of 
salvation. 

And  now  the  world  awaits  the  last  trans- 
figuration of  human  worship,  into  a  spiritual 
condition,  into  a  soul  lifted  above  sin,  and 
exulting  in  a  nearness  to  the  image  of  God. 
The  nations  await  with  tears  of  past  sorrow, 
a  religion  that  shall  indeed  baptize  men  and 
children,  either  or  both,  but  counting  this  as 
only  a  beautiful  form  shall  take  the  souls  of 
men  into  the  atmosphere  of  Jesus,  and  into 
the  all-pervading  presence  of  God,  and  de- 
tain them  there,  until  sin  shall  have  become 
a  hated  monster,  and  perfection  of  spirit  the 
heaven  of  this  life,  and  that  to  come.  Terms 
must  give  place  to  righteousness  and  com- 
munion with  God. 

ProJ.  Swing. — I  endorse  that  fully. 

Prof.  Patton. — Mr.  Moderator,  I  remem- 
ber some  years  ago,  when  a  member  of  the 
Presbytery  of  New  York,  that  we  were 
called  upon  to  inquire,  by  direction  of  the 
General  Assembly,  whether  the  ordinance  of 
Christian  Baptism  was  administered  through- 
out the  several  households  of  our  congrega- 
tions. The  reason  of  the  inquiry  was  that 
it  had  been  alleged  that  there  was  a  great 
tendency  on  the  part  of  our  people  to  neglect 
this  ordinance  ;  and  I  take  it,  sir,  if  the  in- 
quiry were  instituted  again,  you  would  find 
that  not  only  in  this  city,  but  in  other  cities, 
and  in  a  great  many  congregations,  there  are 
a  great  many  Presbyterians  who  are  good 
Presbyterians  in  other  respects  but  who  neg- 
lect the  ordinance  of  infant  baptism,  and,  who 
do  not  recognize  the  claims  of  the  household 
covenant;  and,  if  every  Presbyterian  minis- 
ter should  do  as  Prof.  Swing  did — should  go 
into  his  pulpit  and  affirm  that  baptism  is  "on- 
ly a  beautiful  form,"  I  would  not  be   sur- 


prised if  this  neglect  of  infant  baptism  should 
increase  until  the  Baptist  denomination 
would  swallow  us  up,  and  there  would  be  no 
need  for  any  talk  about  close  communion. 

It  is  not  for  me  to  vindicate  the 
truth  of  the  Confession  of  Faith ;  if 
it  is  true,  so  much  the  better.  If  it  is  not 
true,  all  the  same.  This  court,  in  adjudicat- 
ing upon  a  case  wherein  a  charge  is  made  to 
the  effect,  that  a  man  does  not  receive  the 
Confession  of  Faith,  is  not  called  upon  to 
enter  into  the  question  whether  the  Confes- 
sion of  tl:r'  Faith  is  true.  The  Confession  of 
Faith  is  the  symbol  of  the  -  Presbyterian 
Church.  It  is  the  doctrinal  basis  of  this 
great  Church,  and  we  are  in  good  and  regu- 
lar standing  in  the  Presbyterian  Church,  in 
virtue  of  the  fact  that  we  do  receive,  and 
sincerely  adopt  the  Confession  of  Faith  of 
this  Church. 

Now  I  will  read  the  twelfth  specification, 
which  sets  out  that 

He  has  used  language  in  reference  to  Pen- 
elope and  Socrates  which  is  unwarrantable, 
and  contrary  to  the  teachings  of  the  Confes- 
sion of  Faith.  Chapter  10,  section  4.  That 
is  to  say  that  in  his  sermon  entitled,  "Soul 
Culture,"  the  following  passage  occurs: 
"  There  is  no  doubt  the  notorious  Catharine 
II.  held  more  truth  and  better  truth  than  was 
known  to  all  classic  Greece — held  to  a  belief 
in  a  Saviour  of  whose  glory  that  gifted  man 
knew  naught ;  yet  such  the  grandeur  of  soul 
above  mind  that  I  doubt  not  that  Queen 
Penelope  of  the  dark  land,  and  the  doubting 
Socrates  have  received  at  Heaven's  gate  a 
sweeter  welcome  sung  of  angels  than  greeted 
the  ear  of  llussia's  brilliant,  but  false-lived 
queen." 

I  will  read  the  Confession  of  Faith,  chap- 
ter 10,  section  4  ;  and  the  question  I  wish 
you  to  answer  is  this  :  Whether  the  teachings 
of  Prof.  Swing  harmonize  with  the  Confes- 
sion of  Faith. 

Chapter  10,  section  4.  Others,  not  elected, 
although  .they  may  be  called  by  the  ministry 
of  the  word,  and  may  have  some  common 
operations  of  the  spirit,  yet  they  never  truly 
come  to  Christ,  and  therefore  cannot  be 
saved  ;  much  less  can  men,  not  professing 
the  Christian  religion,  be  saved  in  any  other 
way  whatsoever,  be  they  never  so  diligent  to 
frame  their  lives  according  to  the  light  of 
nature,  and  the  law  of  that  religion  they  do 
profess  ;  and  to  assert  and  maintain  that  they 
may  is  very  pernicious,  and  to  be  detested. 

I  understand  why  Prof.  Swing  expresses 
no  doubt  about  Penelope  or  about  Socrates. 
Prof.  Swing's  theory  of  salvation  is  that  we 
enter  Heaven  on  the  ground  of  our  good 
works,  and  since  Socrates  was  a  better  man 


PEOP.  PATTON'S  ARGUMENT. 


101 


than  some  people  who  have  professed,  and 
call  themselves  Christians,  it  is  fair  to  pre- 
sume that  he  went  to  Heaven.  But,  I 
want  you  to  understand  this  is  not  an 
antithesis  between  Catharine  II.,  who 
went  to  perdition,  and  Penelope,  who 
went  to  Heaven.  The  meaning  of  the 
statement  is  that  both  went  to  Heaven,  and 
the  only  point  of  dilference  is  that  Penelope 
got  there  first  and  had  a  better  welcome 
given  her.  We  have  no  right  to  dogma- 
tize to  the  efiect  that  the  heathen,  with- 
out Christ,  can  be  saved.  I  should  like 
to  know  what  our  missionary  Societies 
mean.  I  would  like  to  know  why  we  feel 
it  necessary  to  go  to  India  to  carry  our 
Christianity  to  those  Brahmins  ;  why,  the 
Apostle  Paul  felt  himself  called  upon  to  go 
to  preach  to  the  cultivated  people  of  Athens. 
If  he  thought  the  people  could  be  saved  by 
good  works  and  that  their  morality  would 
bring  them  into  the  Kingdom  of  God,  I  do 
not  understand  why  the  Apostle  found  it 
necessary  to  rear  the  argument  of  his  epistle 
to  the  Romans  upon  the  basis  of  universal 
condemnation.  If  we  believe  in  the  salva- 
tion of  the  heathen,  without  the  knowledge 
of  Christ,  you  overthrow  the  reason  for  the 
propagation  of  Christianity;  you  cut  the 
nerve  of  missionary  effort ;  you  destroy  the 
force  and  cogency  of  the  Apostle's  argument 
as  laid  down  in  the  epistle  to  the  Romans, 
and  you  reduce  to  a  nulity  the  statement, 
"  How  can  they  believe  in  him  of  whom  they 
have  not  heard  and  how  can  they  hear 
without  a  preacher?" 

But  I  pass  to  the  next  Specification :  it  is 
on  the  subject  of  Providence  of  God.  I  will 
leave  that  for  another  Session.  I  will  speak 
now  on  the  subject  of  the  Christian  Ministry. 
The  Presbytery  will  remember  that  when  the 
prosecution  called  to  the  witness  stand  Dr. 
Swazey,  and  Mr.  Goudy,  and  Mr.  Miller,  j 
the  impressions  given  in  evidence  respecting 
that  sermon  were  so  difi'erent  in  character 
that  we  all  concluded — for  I  anticipate  the 
judgment  of  the  house — that  Dr.  Swazey 
and  Mr.  Goudy  were  testifying  to  diflerent 
sermons.  I  have  in  my  hand  the  sermon 
which  was  preached  at  Dr.  Swazey's  installa- 
tion ;  and  whether  it  is  a  diflerent  sermon 
from  that  preached  in  Standard  Hall  or  not, 
I  can't  say,  but  the  Court  will  remember  the 
testimony  of  JCr.  Goudy,  and  they  will  at 
once  say,  if  it  is  a  different  sermon,  the  sen- 


timents are  strikingly  similar  in   both,     I 
will  read  portions  of  the  sermon. 

Thus  the  minister  of  the  gospel  was  the 
result  of  the  power  called  division  of  labor, 
which  man  could  not  grade ;  were  it  neces- 
sary for  all  to  do  all  things,  the  world  would 
I  become  a  savage  race.     In  the  workiii;:-.s  of 
this  vast  law  the  oflice  of  the  ministry  has 
evolved.     It  was  the  result  of  society  as  or- 
ganized by  the  Creator.     The  moment  man 
became  a  religious  being,  and  it  became  evi- 
dent that  there  were  moral  as  well  as  ma- 
terial   things,   the    minister's  oflice   sprang 
up.     If  society  demanded  artizans   or   stu- 
dents, of  rights  equally  it  d'^nmnded  men  to 
study  the  duties  of  men  and   the  prospect  of 
a  life  to  come.     As  a  flower  was  pushed  above 
the   earth   by   hidden    powers   below,  so  the 
ofllee  of  the  minister  was  pressed  out  of  so- 
ciety and  had  its  basis  on  no  miracles.     It 
was  created  to  a  career  which  was  second  in 
honor   to  none.     Whatever  of  weakness   it 
had  was  the  weakness,  not  of  its  office,  but 
of  the  man.     Grecian  music  and  Egyptian 
architecture  were  weak  and  absurd,  but  the 
fault  Avas   not  with    the   art,  but   with   the 
Greek  and  the  Egyptian.     The  value  of  di- 
vision  of  labor  depended   on  what  was  di- 
vided.  The  specialization  had  its  value  deter- 
mined by  that  which  was  divided   up.     Not 
only  was  the  ministry  the  outburst  of  a  com- 
mon heart,  but  having  fallen  upon  Christian 
truth  it  was  twice  honored.  Here  the  division 
of  labor  was  grand.  It  not  only  placed  man  at 
a  specified  labor,  but  at  a  labor  which  was 
grand.      In   these   two    thoughts,   that    so- 
ciety had  created  the  office,  and  that  Christ 
had  endowed  it   with   a    fortune   of  truth, 
the   minister   of   the  gospel    ought  to    feel 
a  heroism  in  every  duty,  and  in  every  cal- 
amity.    Pitt  and  JBurke  were  no  more  anx- 
ious to  do  humanity's  wish  than  were  Robert 
Hall  and  John  Wesley.      ***** 
The  ministry  appeared  because  man  had  a 
moral   nature   and   a   living   soul,   and    the 
Christian  minister  appeared   because  Christ 
was  the  best  guide  and  the  best  Saviour  of  that 
living  soul.     The  minister  appeared  like  the 
statesman,  in  answer  to  a  call  from  mankind. 
He  was  not  a  parasite,  like  the  mistletoe,  but 
like  a  great  tree  drew  his  nourishment  direct 
from  the  soil.     He  did  not  regard  tr.c  minis- 
try as  existing  through  a  special  tolerance  of 
God.     It  was  not  long  ago  thft  young  men 
used  to  watch  their  dreams  u-r  a  call  to  the 
ministry;    let    a   Bible    fall    open    in    their 
hands  for  an  omen.     Thus  practice  not  only 
introduced  to  the  ministry  men  more  fitted 
to  the  law  or  the  plow,  but  built  up  a  barrier 
between  the  minister  and   the  secular  man. 
He  (the  speaker)  believed  in  calls,  but  not  in 
a  monopoly  of  them  by  the  minister.     It  was 
this  conviction  alone  that  could  build  up  the 
ties  which  held  humanity  together  and  pro- 
duced conversions.     The  professions  must  all 
love  one  another  before  they  could  cherish 
the  same  sentiments.     Out  of  life's  casuistry, 
its  sorrows  and   sins,  its  mystery  of  death, 
had  grown  the  ministry;  a  delicate  plant, 


102 


THE  TRIAL  OF  EEV.  DAVID  SWING. 


watered  by  tears  of  sorrow  and  tears  of  joy, 
whose  roots  were  in  two  world's.  It  is  the 
world's  common  sense  that  called  them  and 
they  came. 

Now  I  will  read  the  Confession  of  Faith, 
which  this  specification  is  alleged  to  contra- 
vene.    Chap.  XXV,  Sec.  viii. 

Unto  this  Catholic,  visible  Church,  Christ 
hath  given  the  ministry,  oracles,  and  ordi- 
nances, of  God,  for  the  gathering  and  per- 
fection of  the  suints,  in  this  life,  to  the  end  of 
the  world:  and  doth  by  His  own  presence 
and  Sjiirit,  according  to  His  promise,  make 
them  etlectual  thereunto. 

Our  church  proceeds  upon  the  idea  that 
there  is  a  society  in  this  world  divinely  ap- 
pointed ;  divinely  officered ;  and  that  men 
are  called  into  the  ministry  by  Divine  Prov- 
idence. That  men  are  invested  with  office  by 
those  who  have  the  right  to  transmit  that 
office;  "the  things  which  thou  hast  heard, 
of  me  the  same  commit  thou  to  faithful 
men  who  shall  be  able  to  teach  others 
also."  Professor  Swing's  sermon,  if  it  means 
anything,  means  that  the  Christian  ministry 
has  no  right  or  standing  in  the  Bible  ;  that 
it  is  an  outgrowth  of  circumstances  ;  that  it  is 
a  result  of  the  law  of  division  of  labor  ;  it  is 
something  Adam  Smith  would  have  put  in 
his  book,  and  not  something  which  claims  to 
stand  by  Divine  right.  We  hold  that  the 
Christian  minister  has  an  official  relation ; 
that  he  is  the  ambassador  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  speaking  by  authority,  blessing  the 
people,  and  administering  the  sacraments 
in  the  name  of  Him  from  whom  he 
receives  his  great  commission.  Doctor 
Swazey  tells  us  that  he  never  heard  a 
sermon  which  better  expressed  his  idea 
of  the  Christian  ministry,  and  when  he  went 
on  to  tell  us  about  it,  he  said,  "It  was  an 
attempt  to  get  at  the  rationale  of  the  Christ- 
ian ministry — 'a  digging  under.'  "  I  think 
it  was  a  "digging' under'' — an  undermining 
of  the  whole  Christian  Church. 

I  will  go  now  to  the  fifteenth  specification, 
quoting  here  from  the  sermon  entitled  "A 
Keligion  of  Words." 

But  our  theme  for  the  hour  is  that  a  spir- 
itual religion  comes  last  in  human  experi- 
ence, and  before  it  comes  a  religion  of  things 
and  of  words.  To  offer  things  to  God  was 
earth's  first  form  of  being  religious.  The 
old  temples  were  full  of  bows,  arrows,  shields, 
helmets  and  jewels  put  away  from  human 
use  by  a  solemn  gift-making  to  the  gods. 
Horace  reveals  the  fact  in  one  of  his  poems 
that  the  sailor  rescued  from  drowning  hung- 
up in  the  temple  what  he  wore  on  his  body 
when   the   divinity    rescued  him   from   the 


grave.  A  gift  was  the  only  known  ac- 
knowledgment. Diflerent  cities  vied  with 
each  other  in  making  their  gods  rich.  What 
gold!  what  garments,  what  jewels,  what  ar- 
mor in  the  temple  of  Juno,  and  what 
luxuries  there  were  in  the  temple  of  Jupiter  ! 
*  *  *  * 

The  Athenians,  upon  the  eve  of  a  battle, 
vowed  to  Apollo  that  if  he  would  grant  them 
tuccess  they  would  offer  to  him  as  many  kids 
9is  there  were  slain  of  the  enemy  on  the  field 
of  battle,  and  so  bloody  was  their  success 
that  the  classic  nation  did  not  possess  flocks 
enough  to  meet  the  vow  of  the  worshippers, 
and  the  state  funded,  as  it  were,  the  promise, 
and  offered  five  hundred  a  year  throiagh  suc- 
cessive generations. 

Worship  was  thus  conducted  by  offerings. 
From  baskets  of  fruit  and  flowers  to  thous- 
ands of  valuable  sheep  and  oxen,  gifts  were 
heaped  upon  the  altars.  At  the  dedication 
of  his  temple  which  was  itself  a  co-tly  pres- 
ent to  Jehovah,  Solomon  sacrificed  twenty- 
two  thousand  oxen  and  one  hundred  and  twen- 
ty thousand  sheep  as  an  oflering  to  Him  who 
had  brought  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt, 
and  out  of  the  house  of  bondage.  All  the 
earth  was  covered  with  this  religion  of  gifts. 
Hindoo  and  African,  Jew  and  Gentile,  In- 
dian and  Koman,  Parthian  and  Greek,  ac- 
complished the  life  of  reiigion  by  offering 
some  things  to  their  favorite  deity. 

***** 

The  gift-worship  at  last  passed  away. 
Christ,  long  borne  in  such  an  earthly  casket, 
outgrew  the  narrow  confines  and  appeared 
ill  lullness  and  broad  liberty.  In  Palestine 
the  religion  of  gifts  terminated  virtually  in 
the  Sermon  upon  the  Mount,  and  in  the 
marvelous  spiritual  life  of  Jesus.  If  the 
soul  has  lost  virtue  and  piety,  the  salvation 
will  be  found  in  a  return  to  piety  and  purity, 
and  the  truths  of  salvation  will  be  those  that 
lead  him  to  that  one  result.  This  is  the  des- 
tiny of  Christ's  mediation.  Hence  the  es- 
sence of  religion  is  found  in  the  one  event 
or  phenomenon,  a  righteoua  heart.  Gifts 
to  the  Deity  were  the  infant  creepings  of 
religion,  the  shadow  of  a  coming  reality,  the 
manifestations  of  an  incipient  love  that  did 
not  know  how  to  express  itself  Not  know- 
ing that  what  God  most  wished  was  a  pure 
heart  in  His  children,  they  loaded  His  tem- 
ples with  their  jewels  and  raiment,  and  His 
altars  with  their  lambs. 

Now,  there  is  no  question  but  that  in  that 
sermon  the  sacrifices  of  the  Jews  are  put 
into  the  same  category  with  similar  services 
of  other  nations.  The  language  applied  to  the 
sacrifices  of  the  Eomans,  and  the  Parthians, 
and  the  Egyptians,  is  applied  to  the  sacri- 
fices of  the  Jews.  Now,  I  have  no  fault  to 
find  with  the  theories  as  to  the  origin  of  the 
sacrifices  when  he  refers  to  the  Eomans  or 
Greeks,  but  when  the  theory  of  sacrifice, 
such  as  is  hinted  at  in  Professor  Swing's 
sermon,  to  the  effect  that  it  is  gift-worship 


PKOF.  PATTON'S  AEGUMENT. 


103 


is  spolv-en  of  as  applying  to  the  Jews,  then  I 
protest,  because  in  such  a  theory  is  wrapped 
up  the  discarding  of  the  essential  idea  of  the 
atonement.     He  says,  alluding  to  the  Jews : 

Gifts  to  the  deity  were  the  infant  creepings 
of  religion;  the  shadow  of  the  coming  real- 
ity ;  the  manifestations  of  an  incipient  love 
that  did  not  know  how  to  express  itself.  Not 
knowing  that  what  God  most  wished  was  a 
pure  heart  in  His  children,  they  loaded  His 
temjdes  with  their  jewels  and  raiment  and 
His  altars  with  their  lambs. 

I  have  three  objections  to  that,  and  they 
are  fatal  to  it.  In  the  first  place,  there  is 
the  objection  that  grows  out  of  its  being  a 
denial,  point-blank,  of  the  statements  of 
Scripture.  If  I  read  the  Book  of  Leviticus 
right,  particularly  the  16th  chapter  of  the 
book  of  Leviticus,  I  get  a  very  difierent  notion 
about  sacrifice.  I  do  not  find  that  it  was  an 
expedient  that  people  resorted  to,  because 
people  did  not  know  any  better,  but  I  find  it 
was  a  divine  ordinance,  and  was  observed 
with  minuteness  of  detail  which  had  been 
before  established  by  God.  And  such  a 
statement  as  Professor  Swing  makes  is  in  the 
face  of  the  Bible.  In  the  second  place,  be- 
cause it  is  a  discarding  of  the  theory  which 
underlies  the  sacrifice.  "When  Toplady  wrote: 

"  Be  of  sin  the  double  cure, 

Cleanse  me  from  its  guilt  and  power." 

Which  some  people  have  had  the  van- 
dalism to  change,  he  meant  something 
and  he  meant  to  recognize  this  cardinal 
theological  fact,  to  wit :  that  sin  has  in 
the  first  place,  made  us  amenable  to  law  and 
put  us  under  condemnation — which  is  guilt ; 
in  the  second  place,  that  sin  has  wrought 
corruption  in  our  hearts,  so  that  we  need 
a  change  of  character.  From  these  two 
grow  justification  and  regeneration.  From 
these  two  factors  grow  the  work  of  Christ  on 
one  side  and  the  work  of  the  Holy  Ghost  on 
the  other.  From  these  came  the  ordinance  of 
baptism,  signifying  the  work  of  the  Spirit  on 
the  one  hand  as  removing  the  pollution,  and 
the  Lord's  Supper  as  signifying  the  atone- 
ment from  the  guilt. 

Now,  when  j'ou  tell  me  that  the  sacrifices 
of  the  Old  Testament  were  simply  gift  wor- 
ship, you  rob  the  Bible  of  one-half  of  its 
doctrine  of  sin.  I  tell  you  the  great  difiiculty 
in  Professor  Swing's  theology,  as  it  is  the 
representative  difficulty  in  the  moral  influ- 
ence theology,  is  that  it  robs  the  Bible  of  the 
idea  of  guilt  and  justification,  and  the 
vicarious  atonement  of  Christ.  "VVe  have 
in   the  Old    Testament   these   two   ideas   of 


guilt  and  pollution,  offset  on  one  side  by  the 
sacrifices— for  without  the  shedding  of  blood 
there  is  no  remission — and  on  the  other  side  by 
purifications.  The  objection  to  the  statement 
is,  that  it  is  not  only  a  point  blank  contra- 
diction of  the  Bible  as  to  the  origin  and  di- 
vine sanctions  of  sacrifice,  but  it  is  an  im- 
plicit denial  of  the  element  of  guilt  in  the 
doctrine  of  sin.  And  it  is  open  to  still  another 
objection— an  objection  which  you  will  have 
already  anticipated,  to  wit:  That  as  you 
judge  of  the  sacrifices  in  the  Book  of  Levit- 
icus, so  will  you  judge  of  the  sacrifice  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ.  If  you  take  the  ground 
that  the  sacrifices  of  the  Old  Testament  are 
simply  gift  worship,  expedients  devised  by  the 
human  heart  and  not  divine  appointments, 
foreshadowing  the  coming  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  then  when  you  come  to  the  Gospel  and 
find  Christ  spoken  of  as  the  Lamb  of  theWorld, 
you  are  left  without  any  mode  of  exegesis. 
You  can't  tell  what  it  means  when  you  come 
to  a  passage  which  speaks  about  propitia- 
tion of  sin.  Unless  you  have  some  theory 
of  the  meaning  of  propitiation  in  the  Old 
Testament,  you  can't  tell  what  propitiation 
means  in  reference  to  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 
For  the  members  of  this  court  know  that  the 
obstacles  which  stand  in  the  way  of  those 
who  wish  to  rob  the  Bible  of  this  idea,  are  the 
Book  of  Leviticus  and  the  Epistle  of  Paul  to 
the  Hebrews.  If  j-ou  could  take  that  out  of 
the  Bible,  which  is  simply  a  commentary 
written  with  God's  own  finger,  on  the  Book 
of  Leviticus — the  priesthood  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament and  the  priesthood  of  Christ — you 
would  have  a  material  fact,  establishing, 
with  more  cogency  than  you  now  have,  the 
doctrine  of  the  moral  influence  theory  of  the 
atonement.  But  the  thing  which  stares  Dr. 
Bushnell,  and  Stanley,  and  Maurice  in  the 
face  is  this  old  system  of  sacrifice,  is  this  old 
Book  of  Leviticus,— this  story  of  the  scape 
goat  in  the  16th  chapter  of  Leviticus.  And 
until  you  get  that  out  of  the  Bible,  you  are 
bound  to  stand  upon  the  doctrine  of  the  Pres- 
byterian Church,  to  wit:  that  when  Christ 
died.  He  offered  Himself  up  as  a  sacri- 
fice to  satisfy  divine  justice  and  reconcile  us 
to  God.  "When  I  find  a  statement  like  this 
in  Prof.  Swing's  sermon,  I  have  the  fore- 
shadowing of  a  doctrine  which  betrays  the 
glorious  Gospel  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and 
that  is  why  1  object  to  it. 

The   Presbytery  then  took  a  recess   until 
2:30  P.  il. 


104 


THE  TKIAL  OF  REV.  DAVID  SWING. 


The  Presbytery  met  pursuant  to  adjourn- 
ment, at  2:30  P.  M.,  when  Prof.  Patton  re- 
sumed his  argument  as  follows  : 

The  next  specification,  Mr.  Moderator,  in 
order  would  be  the  sixteenth ;  but  as  I  have 
already  anticipated,  in  substance,  what  is  in- 
volved in  it,  and  as  I  may  have  occasion  to 
go  over  the  same  ground  in  what  I  shall  yet 
say,  I  will  pass  it  by,  reminding  the  court 
however,  of  the  statements  made  yesterday 
in  reference  to  Mr.  Mill,  and  in  reference  to 
M.  Cousin. 

Seventeenth  specification.  I  have  heard  it 
said  repeatedly  that  the  great  difference  be- 
tween Prof.  Swing  and  his  ministerial 
brethren  is,  that  he  avoids  the  use  of  theo- 
logical terms,  or,  as  it  is  somewhat  facetious- 
ly put — he  gets  out  of  the  usual  theological 
ruts.  Now,  Mr.  Moderator,  were  Prof. 
Swing  studiously  to  avoid  the  use  of  theologi- 
cal terms,  I  think  that  one  great  cause  of  the 
misunderstanding  which  now  exists  would  be 
removed.  I  believe  that  one  great  reason 
why  he  retains  the  confidence  of  evangelical 
people  is  because  he  continues  to  make  use  of 
evangelical  terminology.  And  it  is  an  im- 
portant point  in  this  case,  to  remember  that 
when  you  see  the  words  "  regeneration," 
"  conversion,"  "justification,"  "  divine," 
"  Saviour,"  and  "  salvation,"  you  are  not  to 
conclude  your  examination,  and  assume  that 
these  words  mean  in  his  dictionary  what  they 
mean  in  yours.  The  necessities  of  this  con- 
troversy require  me  to  use  language  in  refer- 
ence to  the  Unitarian  denomination  by  way 
of  antithesis,  which  I  hope  will  not  be  con- 
strued into  any  intention  of  disrespect  to- 
wards that  body  Those  gentlemen  who 
sincerely,  and  honestly,  and  in  a  manly  way, 
avow  their  Unitarian  sentiments,  I  know 
very  well,  will  respect  me  in  avowing  as  ex- 
plicitly my  ditierence  with  them,  and  my 
belief  in  contradictory  sentiments.  But 
what  I  wish  to  say,  is,  that  we  must  remem- 
ber that  we  are  not  alone  in  the  use  of  these 
words;  that  the  Presbyterians,  Methodists, 
Baptists,  Episcopalians,  and  Congregational- 
ists,  do  not  have  a  monopoly  of  the  words 
"regeneration,"  "justification,"  "divine," 
"Saviour,"  "salvation,"  conversion,"  and 
that  therefore,  it  becomes  us  to  understand 
what  these  words  import  when  they  are  used. 
An  ordinary  Christian  goes  into  a  Unitarian 
church,  hears  the  minister  talk  about  regene- 
ration, and  says  :  "That  man  preaches  about 
the  same  as  our  minister  does.     He  preached 


about  regeneration  to-day ;  he  can't  be  so 
different  from  us.  He  said  the  Saviour  was 
divine.  He  talked  about  justification  and 
regeneration,  and  the  Saviour  and  salva- 
tion." It  becomes  us,  therefore,  to  scrutin- 
ize these  words  and  scan  their  meaning, 
that  we  may  see  whether  Prof.  Swing  does 
use  them  in  the  evangelical  sense.  A  study 
of  his  sermons  has  impressed  upon  my  mind 
a  very  serious  doubt  as  to  whether  he  uses 
these  words  in  their  evangelical  sense — I  mean 
in  the  sense  believed  by  the  Presbyterian 
church,  for  I  believe  that  is  least  discourteous 
and  the  least  arrogant  way  of  putting  it. 
Here  is  a  sentence  from  Prof.  Swing's  ser- 
mon on  "  a  Religion  of  Words." 

A  spiritual  religion  announced  and  a 
spiritual  religion  accepted  are  different  mat- 
ters. A  divine  being  and  a  few  followers  may 
announce  one,  but  the  world  is  always  far  be- 
low the  leading  divine  souls,  and  hence  after 
heavenly  words  are  announced  it  will  con- 
tinue for  a  time  in  paths  much  like  those  of 
yesterday.     A  resemblance  is  demanded. 

He  speaks  first  of  a  divine  being  and  he 
then  speaks  of  a  few  leading  divine  souls. 
Then,  in  another  sermon,  "  St.  Paul  and  the 
Golden  Age,"  he  says:  "For  of  these  four 
great  ideas  this  is  nothing  else  than  a  divine- 
ness  of  soul,  a  rising  above  things  material." 
That  divineness  of  soul  there  spoken  of  is  a 
characteristic  of  the  Christian.  Now,  when 
Prof.  S.wing  speaks  also  of  the  "divineness  " 
of  our  Lord  and  here  of  the  "  divineness  "  of 
Christians,  am  I  a  very  wicked  man  for  say- 
ing I  don't  know  whether  he  believes  Christ 
is  God?  In  the  sermon  entitled  Christianity 
and  Dogma,  he  says,  "  I  shall  now  approach 
a  more  warmly  disputed  proposition — that 
the  divineness  of  Christ  is  something  essen- 
tial to  the  Christian  system."  Now,  I  should 
like  to  know  whether  when  he  speaks  of  "di- 
vineness "  as  an  attribute  to  Christ,  he  means 
something. different  from  "divineness"  as  an 
attribute  of  Christians.  And  when  he  af- 
firms that  Christ  is  "divine"  whether  he 
means  something  different  from  what  he 
does  when  he  affirms  that  men  are  "divine." 
His  language  does  not  furnish  an  answer  to 
that  question.  That  he  does  not  use  the 
word  "justification "  as  the  Presbyterian 
church  uses  it,  will  bo  shown  when  we  con- 
sider the  question  of  justification.  The 
words  "regeneration"  and  "conversion," 
occur  very  frequently  in  Prof.  Swing's  ser- 
mons, and  one  who  has  not  given  those  ser- 
mons  special   consideration,   and   who  does 


PROF.  PATTON'S  ARGUMENT. 


105 


not  remember  that  those  words  are  used  in  a 
sense  different  from  the  Presbyterian  sense 
by  Unitarians,  might  not  think  it  necessary 
to  inquire  whether  regeneration  in  Prof. 
Swing's  vocabulary,  is  the  same  as  regenera- 
tion in  the  Confession  of  Faith.  I  confess 
that  Prof.  Swing  uses  the  words  "  conver- 
sion"  and  "regeneration"  in  such  a  sense 
that  I  am  constrained  to  believe  that  he  does 
not  use  them  in  the  sense  in  which  you  and  I 
would  use  them,  Mr.  Moderator.  By  regen- 
eration, in  the  sense  imposed  upon  that  word 
by  the  Presbyterian  church,  we  mean  an  act. 
Eegeneration,  as  used  by  Prof.  Swing,  seems 
to  be  a  work.  Eegeneration,  as  used  by  the 
Presbyterian  church,  is  a  divine  act.  Ee- 
generation, as  used  by  Prof.  Swing,  is  moral 
reformation.  Eegeneration,  as  understood  by 
the  Presbyterian  church,  is  the  act  of  God's 
Holy  Spirit,  whereby  "  convincing  us  of  our 
sin  and  misery,  enlightening  our  minds  in 
the  knowledge  of  Christ,  he  doth  persuade 
and  enable  us  to  receive  Jesus  Christ  as  He 
is  freely  offered  us  in  the  Gospel."  That  is 
what  we  mean  by  regeneration  ;  and  conver- 
sion, in  our  vocabulary  is  simply  the  same 
idea  looked  at  from  a  human  point  of  view, 
for  it  is  in  virtue  of  the  divine  agency  put- 
ting into  us  a  new  principle  that  we  do  turn 
about  and  live  a  new  life ;  but  the  regener- 
ation comes  first  and  the  conversion  follows. 
The  regeneration  is  God's  work  and  the  con- 
version man's.  Now,  what  is  Prof.  Swing's 
view  upon  that  question  ?  You  must  re- 
member that  this  word — "  regeneration  " — 
is  used  by  all  sorts  of  people.  It  is  used  by 
everybody,  whether  they  think,  or  know,  or 
believe  anything  about  theology  or  not.  It 
was  used  by  John  Stuart  Mill.  Let  me  read 
a  passage.     He  says  : 

Many  essential  elements  of  the  highest 
morality  are  among  the  things  not  provided 
for,  nor  intended  to  be  provided  for,  in  the 
recorded  deliverances  of  the  Founder  of 
Christianity,  and  which  had  been  entirely 
thrown  aside  in  the  system  of  ethics  erected 
on  the  basis  of  these  deliverances  by  the 
Christian  Church.  *  *  *  I  believe  that 
other  ethics  than  any  which  can  be  erected 
from  exclusively  Christian  sources,  must 
exist  side  by  side  with  Christian  ethics  to 
produce  the  moral  regeneration  of  man- 
kind. 

I  said  that  Presbytei-ians  are  not  the  only 
religious  denomination  who  use  the  word  re- 
generation. I  said  that  Unitarians  use  the 
words  regeneration  and  conversion, — and 
they  distinguish  between  regeneration   and 


conversion  as  I  think  they  ought  to  distin- 
guish, only  their  distinction  is  a  little  differ- 
ent from  ours — very  different.  Let  me  read 
from  James  Freeman  Clarke,  about  regener- 
ation and  conversion,  page  181. 

Section  8.  Differences  hetween  Conversion 
and  Berjeneration.  Conversion  is  an  act,  re- 
gen(^ration  an  experience.  "Turn  ye,  turn 
ye,  for  why  will  ye  die  ?"  is  the  command  of 
the  Old  Testament.  "  Eepent  and  be  con- 
verted that  your  sins  may  be  blotted  out;'' 
"  repent  and  be  baptized  and  ye  shall  receivo 
the  gilt  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  is  the  command 
of  the  New  Testament.  It  is  a  duly  to  re- 
pent ;  but  to  become  regenerated  is  not  a 
duty  ;  that  is  a  gift  to  be  received  afterwards. 
God  commands  conversion,  he  bestows  regen- 
eration. Submission  is  an  act  of  our  own, 
faith  is  the  gift  of  God.  A  change  of  out- 
ward life  and  conduct  we  can  accomplish 
ourselves ;  at  least  we  can  endeavor  to  ac- 
complish it ;  but  the  change  of  heart  God 
himself  will  bestow.  Conversion,  a  turning 
round,  is  necessarily  instantaneous — it  is  a 
change.  But  regeneration,  or  reception  of 
divine  love,  is  a  state,  not  sudden,  but  passing 
by  gradations  into  a  deeper  and  deeper  life 
of  faith  and  joy. 

Now,  I  will  read  a  few  passages  from  Prof. 
Swing's  discourses  which  bears  upon  this 
question  of  conversion  and  of  regeneration, 
and  I  will  ask  whether  they  do  not  strongly 
suggest  the  idea  that  he  uses  these  words  in 
a  sense  at  least  different  from  that  in  which 
they  are  used  by  the  Presbyterian  Church. 

I  will  read  from  the  sermon  called  "The 
Gradual  Decline  of  Vice." 

The  discourse  before  you  last  Sunday 
closed  with  an  appeal  to  j-ou  to  gird  up  your 
strength  against  the  evils  of  the  age  ;  but 
that  we  may  all  possess  some  general,  truth- 
ful view  of  the  work  on  hand,  of  its  magni- 
tude and  despair  or  hope,  it  seems  desirable 
that  an  hour  should  be  given  to  inquiry  as 
to  the  present  attitude  of  human  depravity 
compared  with  the  long  yesterday.  This 
inquiry  may  lead  us  along  two  paths,  the  one 
leading  through  the  a  ^9r/o?'t  question,  AVhat 
should  be  the  resultof  the  increase  of  knowl- 
edge? The  other  leading  through  the  actu- 
al facts  with  the  question,  "What  has  been 
the  history  of  sin  ?  The  relation  between 
knowledge  and  virtue  is,  as  a  general  truth, 
the  relation  between  a  cause  and  an  effect. 
While  no  one  will  contend  that  knowledge 
will  fully  regenerate  the  heart  and  make  a 
saint  out  of  a  sinner,  yet  the  tendency  of 
information  is  to  raise  the  individual  to  a 
higher  jihine  of  morality.  It  is  a  great 
mistake  to  suppose  that  all  the  ills  of  man- 
kind come  from  their  not  being  religious  or 
conscientious,  and  that  all  the  human  family 
needs  is  a  sudden  conversion  to  our  Christi- 
anitv.  Conversion  will  only  check  those 
actions  which  the  mind  knows  to  be  wrong, 
but  will  only  add  fuel  to  a  line  of  bad  con- 


106 


THE  TKIAL  OF  EEV.  DAVID  SWING. 


duct,  -wliich  the  mind  supposes  to  be  right. 
Eelii;ious  conversion  brin_2;s  only  an  increas- 
ed desire  to  follow  the  right,  Irat  it  does  not 
dejii^mate  a  new  right  for  the  mind.  Hence, 
ill  the  dark  ages,  a  religious  revival  among 
the  Catholics  was  always  attended  by  a  new 
slaughter  of  Protestants,  because  the  new 
zealin  the  heart  did  not  bring  any  new  in- 
formation to  the  intellect,  but  only  fanned 
the  existing  ideas  into  flame.  "What  is  de- 
manded along  with  a  well-disposed  heart  is 
a  well-informed  intellect.  However  good  a 
man  may  be,  it  will  be  perfectly  impossible 
for  him  to  escape  a  viceunless  he  knows  it  to 
be  such,  and  hence  information  or  knowledge 
is  an  absolute  condition  of  jnorality  or  man- 
hood. The  opium-eaters  among  the  lowest 
classes  in  China,  and  the  dirt-eaters  and 
whisky  drinkers  among  the  Indian  tribes,  do 
not  descend  from  an  origin  of  sin  only,  but 
from  an  ancestry  of  ignorance.  Their  noble 
life  will  come  not  simply  from  a  study  of  re- 
ligion, but  also  from  a  study  of  physiology 
and  ail  the  laws  of  health  and  refinement. 
Men  are  bad  enough  through  sin,  but  they 
are  wretched  beyond  this  through  ignorance. 
In  India  the  most  devout  fakirs,  who  live 
for  nothing  but  God  and  the  soul,  will  once 
a  day  roll  in  the  mud,  or  in  the  foulest  gut- 
ter, in  order  to  show  their  contempt  for  the 
sinful  thing  called  the  body.  Now  what 
those  fakirs  need  is  not  an  increase  of  re- 
ligion, but  an  increase  of  sense.  They  need 
to  learn  that  sin  is  not  in  the  body  but  in 
the  soul,  and  that  the  true  God  is  not  a  being 
worshipped  by  a  beastly  conduct,  by  a  wol- 
lowing  in  the  mire,  but  by  a  noble,  perfect 
soul  in  a  pure,  perfect  body.  When  Christ 
forgave  His  murderers,  on  the  ground  that 
they  knew  not  what  they  did,  He  re-affirmed 
for  us  the  proposition  that  much  of  the 
world's  sin  and  evil  comes  from  an  ignorance 
that  thinks,  in  the  midst  of  awful  actions, 
that  it  is  doing  God's  service.  It  serves  Sa- 
tan under  the  supposition  that  he  is  God. 
The  evils  of  the  world  are  wider  than  the 
direct  desire  of  Mankind  to  commit  sin,  for 
millions  do  wrong  supposing  it  to  be  right ; 
hence,  in  order  to  find  some  foundation  as 
broad  as  this  dreadful  superstructure,  ,we 
must  combine  ignorance  and  wickedness, 
and  then  we  have  the  base  adequate  for  the 
fabric. 

Having  thus  found  that  ignorance  is  a  vast 
cause  of  the  world's  great  evils,  we  infer 
from  the  gradual  spread  of  intelligence  that 
the  great  vices  are  on  the  gradual  decline. 
If  the  cause  is  declining  we  need  no  a  •po'ite- 
riori  inquiry  to  show  us  that  the  eflect  must 
be  io  far  on  the  wane. 

In  the  sermon  entitled  "Christianity  a 
Life,"  he  says: 

Our  century  perceives  that  under  all  the 
pursuits  and  pleasures  of  this  existence  the 
law  of  a  spiritual  nature  may  lie,  and  that  a 
naturalist,  or  a  statesman,  or  a  queen,  or  a  mu- 
sician, or  a  judge  on  the  bench,  or  a  young 
heart  in  the  open  fields,  may  be  wholly 
within  the  spiritual   life  introduced   to   our 


gaze  by  the  Saviour.  The  law  of  the  spirit 
of  life  in  Christ  is  nothing  more  than  a 
grand,  broad  human  life,  all  pervaded  by 
righteousness  and  a  certain  elevated  senti- 
ment toward  God  and  man.  A  spiritual  life 
is  only  a  life  purified  and  elevated. 

In  the  same  sermon,  referring  to  the  influ- 
ence of  Roman  Catholicism  in  Ireland,  he 
says : 

There  can  be  no  Christianity  without  a 
new  spiritual  life.  Its  flrst  move  is  to  rise 
above  intemperance,  above  all  bad  passions, 
above  ignorance,  above  idleness,  above  bar- 
barism, which  is  only  a  general  name  for 
sin,  and  to  this  end  it  is  a  light  to  enlighten 
and  a  spirit  to  transform ;  and  under  these 
forces  the  soul  becomes  freed  from' the  law  of 
sin  and  death,  and  rises  like  Paul,  up  toward 
the  higher  being.  But  instead  of  going  to 
the  Green  Isle  with  this  spiritual  regenera- 
tion, two  of  the  largest  churches  in  Christen- 
dom, the  Roman  and  the  English,  repaired 
thither — the  former  with  nothing  but  a  poor 
belief,  the  latter  with  taxes  and  with  the 
same  belief,  only  modified  far  enough  to  be- 
come unwelcome. 

In  these  passages,  and  in  all  the  writings 
of  Professor  Swing,  regeneration  means  re- 
formation. 

I  know  of  no  church  which  is  now  within 
the  pale  of  Christendom  in  which  it  is  taught 
that  irrespective  of  a  man's  life,  he  is  ushered 
into  an  elysium  when  he  dies.  I  believe,  in 
the  earlier  history  of  Universalism  in  this 
country  that  doctrine  was  taught,  but  at  the 
present  time, — and  I  know  this  is  a  disputed 
question  among  some  of  the  denominations, 
and  yet  I  have  the  good  authority  of  as  re- 
presentative a  man  as  Dr.  Ryder,  for  saying, 
at  the  present  time  the  Universalist  denomi- 
nation do  believe  in  future  punishment,  and 
they  believe  that  sin  is  always  punished. 
They  do  not  believe  in  the  eternity  of  future 
punishment ;  so  that  the  fact  that  a  man 
believes  in  a  future  punishment  beyond  the 
grave,  does  not,  ipso  facto  place  him  within 
the  pale  of  .the  Presbyterian  Churches,  nor 
does  the  fact  that  he  believes  that  sin  carries 
with  it  its  own  punishment  in  this  world  as 
well  as  in  the  world  to  come,  of  itself,  place 
him  within  the  pale  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  upon  the  doctrine  of  that  church. 

Now,  it  has  been  quoted  in  evidence  here 
that  Prof.  Swing  believes  in  future  punish- 
ment, and  he  himself  has  stated  that  he  be- 
lieves in  the  final  separation  of  the  righteous 
and  the  wicked.  Does  he  believe  in  the 
eternity  of  future  punishment,  and  does  he 
believe  that  God  is  not  only  Father,  but 
Sovereign  j  that  we  are  to  appear  before  the 


PKOF.  PATTON'S  ARGUMENT. 


107 


judgment  scat  of  Christ;  that  we  are  to  re- 
ceive recompense  for  the  things  done  in  the 
body,  whether  they  be  good  or  bad ;  that 
those  who  have  done  evil  shall  go  away  into 
everlasting  punishment,  not  merely  as  the 
natural  fruit  of  their  doing  it  by  way  of 
natural  consequence,  but  by  the  way  of  a 
just  punishment  for  sin,  and  a  punishment 
for  the  glory  of  a  just  God  ?  Does  he  believe 
that  ?  There  is  nothing  in  anj'  language  he 
has  used,  to  teach  it.  I  know  he  has  said, 
and  it  was  quoted  as  the  strongest  language, 
for  I  suppose  the  defense  would  quote  the 
strongest  language  they  could  get  in  support 
of  the  proposition,  that  he  does  teach  this 
evangelical  doctrine.  This  passage  was  quoted 
from  the  sermon  on  "  Salvation  and  Moral- 
ity." "There  is  a  Christianity  which  will  save 
the  world.  It  has  not  only  a  faith,  but  it  has  a 
morality  as  essential  as  its  faith.  It  not  only 
says,  '  Believe  and  be  saved,'  but  it  assigns 
damnation  to  him  who  leads  a  wicked  life." 

I  don't  know  whether  the  Universalists 
would  use  the  word  damnation  or  not,  but 
they  hold  the  doctrine  of  that  sentence.  There 
is  not  a  Universalist  minister  in  this  city  but 
would  teach  it.  Now,  how  am  I  to  interpret 
that  sentence  ?  If  that  were  to  come  from 
your  lips,  Mr.  Moderator,  I  should  say  that 
you  meant  that  in  the  sense  of  the  Presbyter- 
ian Confession  of  Faith,  for  this  reason,  that 
nothing  has  ever  come  from  your  lips  to  give 
me  reason  for  interpreting  it  in  any  other 
sense.  Now,  I  put  alongside  of  that  this 
statement  from  "  Truths  for  To-Day."  He 
says,  "The  least  trace  of  infidelity  lessens  the 
activity.  Unbelief  brings  all  to  a  halt,  and 
damns  the  soul,  not  by  a  special  decree,  but 
by  interrupting  the  best  flow  of  its  life.  Un- 
belief is  not  an  arbitrary  but  a  natural 
damnation." 

Well,  now,  Mr.  Moderator,  I  am  in  the 
habit  of  believing  the  Bible.  When  it  saj-s 
there  is  to  be  this  great  white  throne,  I 
believe  it.  And  when  its  says  we  are  all  to 
appear  before  the  judgment  seat  of  Christ,the 
sheep  on  the  right  hand  and  the  goats  on  the 
left,  and  that  we  are  to  receive  from  the  lips 
of  the  blessed  Jesus  the  welcome  "  Come  ye 
blessed  of  my  father  inherit  the  kingdom 
prepared  for  you  from  the  foundation  of  the 
world."  I  shall  not  call  that  any  natural 
kind  of  salvation.  I  shall  say  by  the  grace 
of  God  I  am  what  I  am,  and  go  up  to  glory 
singing  "unto  him  who  loved  us,  and  hath 
washed  us  from  our  sins  in  his  own  blood, 


and  hath  made  us  kings  and  priests,  unto 
God  and  his  Father,  unto  Him  be  glory  for 
ever.  Amen."  And  when  he  says  unto  those 
on  the  left  hand  "  Depart  from  me  ye  cursed, 
into  everlasting  fire  prepared  for  the  Devil 
and  angels,"  I  do  not  think  we  will  express 
the  truth  if  we  simply  say  that  their  damna- 
tion is  simply  the  "  arrest  of  the  best  flow  of 
a  man's  life,  and  a  natural  damnation,  but 
on  the  contrary,  that  it  is  a  judicial  infliction 
of  a  righteous  sentence  from  the  lips  of  a 
righteous  God.  whose  law  has  been  violated. 
And  that  is  what  our  standards  teach.  You 
may  revile  the  standards,  if  j'ou  please.  You 
may  say  the  Presbyterian  church  is  pander- 
ing to  infidelity.  You  may  say  that,  by  her 
awful  doctrine  of  Hell,  taught  with  such 
"terrible  plainness,"  she  has  done  something 
towards  ministering  to  rationalism.  Be  it  so, 
though  I  deny  it.  That  is  the  doctrine  of 
the  Presbyterian  church,  and  being  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Presbyterian  church,  I  believe  it. 
If  I  did  not  believe  it  I  would  say  so,  and 
leave  the  Presbyterian  church. 

Now,  let  me  read  you  the  Confession  of 
Faith,  Chapter  33,  section  2. 

The  end  of  God's  appointing  this  day  is 
for  the  manifestation  of  the  glory  of  His 
mercy  in  the  eternal  salvation  of  the  elect ; 
and  of  his  justice  in  the  damnation  of  the 
reprobate,  who  are  wicked  and  disobedient. 
For  then  shall  the  righteous  go  into  ever- 
lasting life,  and  receive  the  fullness  of  joy 
and  refreshing  which  shall  come  from  the 
presence  of  the  Lord ;  but  the  wicked  who 
know  not  God,  and  obey  not  the  gospel  of 
Jesus  Christ,  shall  be  ca>t  into  eternal  tor- 
ments, and  be  punished  with  everlasting 
destruction  from  the  presence  of  the  Lord 
and  from  the  glory  of  His  power. 

That  is  strong  language,  but  if  you  want 
any  stronger  language  than  that  I  will  go  to 
the  four  Gospels,  and  in  words  which  fell  so 
frequently  from  the  lips  of  our  gentle  Re- 
deemer, prove  to  you  that  if  His  authority 
is  worth  anything,  the  doctrine  is  true,  and 
the  terrible  responsibility  of  the  preacher 
and  the  great  need  of  evangelizing  the  world, 
and  what  gives  nerve  to  missionary  effort  is 
the  fact  that  that  doctrine  is  true. 

I  will  read  now,  several  specifications,  and 
instead  of  taking  them  up  one  by  one,  I 
shall  group  them  under  a  discussion  of  the 
doctrine  which  is  involved  in  them  all,  and 
allude  to  them  from  time  to  time  as  occasion 
may  serve. 

Specification  xix.  He  teaches  that  faith 
saves  because  it  leads  to  holy  life  ;  that  sal- 
vation by  faith  is  not  peculiar  to  Christiani- 


1U8 


TUE  TIUAL  OF  KEV.  DAVID  SWING. 


ty  ;  that  salvsvtion  is  a  matter  of  degree,  and 
that  the  supremacy  of  faith  in  salvation 
arises  out  of  the  fact  that  it  goes  further 
than  other  Christian  graces  towards  making 
men  holy  ;  that  is  to  say,  in  the  sermons  en- 
titled "Faith,"  printed  in  the  volume  called 
^'Truths  for  To-day,"  the  following  and  sim- 
ilar language  occiars  :  "Faith  in  Christ  is  a 
rich  soil,  out  of  which  Eighteousness  is  a 
gorgeous  bloom."  "If  there  were  enough 
truth — truth  of  morals  and  redemption,  in 
the  ]VIohammedan  or  Buddhist  system  to 
save  the  soul — faith  would  be  the  law  of  sal- 
vation within  these  systems."  "Salvation 
by  faith  is  not  a  creation  or  invention  of  the 
ISfew  Testament,  but  is  a  law  that  has  pushed 
its  way  up  into  the  New  Testament  from  the 
realm  without."  "No  other  grace  could  so 
save  the  soul.  Charity  may  do  much.  It 
softens  the  heart,  and  drags  along  a  train  of 
virtues ;  but  it  is  limited  by  the  horizon  of 
this  life.  Voltaire  and  Paine  were  both 
beautiful  in  charity  toward  the  poor,  but 
that  virtue  seems  inadequate ;  and  of  the 
highest  forms  of  charity  a  religious  faith  is 
the  best  cause,  and  hence  charity  must  take 
the  place,  not  of  a  leader,  but  of  one  that  is 
led.  Even  penitence  is  a  poor  'saving  grace' 
compared  with  faith."  See  Confession  of 
Faith,  chaps,  ix.  xvi. 

Specification  xx. — He  teaches  that  men 
are  saved  by  works;  that  is  to  say,  in  the 
sermons  entitled  "  Good  Works,"  "  The 
Value  of  Yesterday,"  "A  Keligion  of 
Words,"  the  following  and  similar  language 
occurs:  "There  is  nothing  society  so  much 
needs  to-day  as  not  Divine  righteousness  but 
human  righteousness."  "Heaven  is  a  height 
to  wlrich  men  climb  on  the  deeds  of  tliis  life." 
"Coming  to  the  grave,  he  only  can  look  for- 
ward with  joy  who  can  sweetly  look  back." 
"  The  good  deeds  of  yesterday,  the  good 
deeds  of  to-day,  the  perfected  goodness  of  to- 
morrow, a  deep  love  for  man,  a  conscious- 
ness of  the  presence  of  God,  will  fill  the  whole 
place  with  a  nobleness  and  happiness  to 
which  earth  has  thus  far  been  willingly  a 
stranger.  This  will  be  a  salvation,  and 
Christ  will  be  a  Saviour."  (Confession  of 
Faith,  chap,  xi,  sec.  14.) 

Specification  xxi. — He  denies  the  doc- 
trine of  Justification  by  Faith,  as  held  by  the 
Reformed  Churches,  and  taught  in  the 
Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  ;  chapter 
xi,  that  is  to  say,  in  the  sermon  entitled 
"  Good  Works,"  he  uses  the  following  and 
similar  language  :  "  Works,  that  is,  results 
— a  new  life — are  the  destiny  of  faith,  the 
reason  of  its  wonderful  play  of  light  on  the 
religious  horizon.  Faith,  as  a  belief  and  a 
friendship,  is  good,  so  far  as  it  bears  the  soul 
to  this  moral  perfection." 

Specification  xxii. — In  the  sermon  afore- 
said misrepresents  the  doctrinal  views  of 
those  who  believe  in  Justification  by  Faith 
alone,  by  using  language  which  is  calculated 
to  produce  the  impression  that  those  who 
hold  the  doctrine  aforesaid,  divorce  faith 
from  morals,  and  believe  that  men  may  be 


saved  by  an  intellectual  assent  to  a  creed 
without  regard  to  personal  character. 

The  Moderator. — Where  do  you  find  the 
last  quotation  in  Specification  20  ?  Where 
does  that  occur  ? 

Prof.  Patton. — I  can't  tell  you  at  this  mo- 
ment; I  think  it  is  in  the  "  Eeligion  of 
Words,"  about  the  last  part  of  the  sermon. 

Now,  Mr.  Moderator,  history  repeats  her- 
self. Our  discussion  is  not  to-day  with  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church,  but  the  doctrine 
in  issue  is  the  doctrine  which  Luther  de- 
fended against  the  church  of  Eome.-  The 
Acropolis  of  the  Christian  faith,  is  the  doc- 
trine of  justification  by  faith.  That  made 
the  Eeformation.  That  makes  Presbyte- 
rianism  ;  and  when  you  depart  from  it  you 
leave  the  cardinal  doctrines  of  Christianity 
behind  you.  I  claim  that  Prof.  Swing  does 
not  believe  in  the  doctrine  of  Justification 
by  Faith  as  it  is  taught  in  the  Symbols  of 
the  Presbyterian  church,  and  the  Symbols  of 
all  the  Calvinistic  churches.  What  do  we  un- 
derstand by  Justification  by  Faith  ?  What 
is  the  nature  of  Justification  ?  There  are 
just  two  possible  opinions  on  this  question. 
Justification  either  expresses  a  legal  change 
in  a  man's  condition  or  an  actual  change  in 
a  man's  character.  It  means  either  a  judi- 
cial act  on  the  part  of  God  declaring  man 
just,  or  it  means  an  actual  change  in  a  man's 
nature  by  which  he  becomes  just. 

Now  the  doctrine  of  the  Eoman  Catholic 
Church  was  that  Justification  means  making 
holy  ;  that  a  justified  person  was  a  holy  per- 
son. And  the  issue  in  the  main  with  the 
Catholic  Church  at  the  time  of  this  great 
controversy  was  to  settle  that  question  and 
to  deny  that  Justification  meant  a  making 
holy  and  to  affirm  that  it  was  a  judicial  act. 
All  persons  who  hold  the  doctrine  of  Justifi- 
cation in  its  evangelical  sense  as  opposed  to 
mysticism  on  the  one  side  and  as  opposed  to 
Eomanism  on  the  other  side,  affirm  that  by 
it  they  mean  a  judicial  act  on  the  part  of 
God.  Now  when  you  come  to  those  who 
affirm  that  Justification  is  a  judicial  act  on 
the  part  of  God,  we  find  a  diflerence  again. 
We  find  for  instance  our  Arminian  brethren 
going  with  us  thus  far,  but  our  paths  diverge 
at  this  point ;  for  they  say  that  Justification 
means  pardon.  We  say  that  it  means  par- 
don plus  something  else.  To  illustrate :  it  is 
one  thing  for  the  executive  to  say  to  the 
criminal  whom  he  has  pardoned :  "  Go  out  of 
jail,  I  pardon  you,"  and  it  is  another  thing 


PROF.  PATTON'S  ARGUMENT. 


109 


for  him  to  say,  "  Come  home  and  take  supper 
with  me,  and  be  a  guest  in  my  house." 
But  this  is  just  the  diU'erenoe  so  far  as  God 
is  concerned  and  so  far  as  the  teachings  of 
our  standards  are  concerned.  When  God 
justifies  a  man,  He  not  only  pardons  him, 
but  he  says,  "Come;  the  oxen  and  the  fat- 
tlings  are  killed,  and  everything  is  ready. 
Come  home  to  the  marriage  supper  of  the 
Lamb." 

Now  our  Confession  of  Faith  expresses 
that  idea  in  this  way.  "Justification  is  an 
act  of  God's  free  grace  wherein  he  freely 
pardoneth  all  our  sins."  The  Arminians 
will  go  with  us  thus  far,  hand  in  hand. 
"And  accepteth  us  as  righteous  in  his  sight," 
we  say ;  and  that  makes  the  difference  be- 
tween Calvinism  and  Arminianism. 

Our  standards,  therefore,  define  justifica- 
tion. It  is  an  act.  It  is  an  act  of  God.  It 
is  an  act  of  God's  free  grace.  It  is  an  act  of 
God's  free  grace  wherein  he  pardons  our  sins  ; 
and  it  is  an  act  of  God's  free  grace  wherein, 
in  addition  to  pardoning  our  sins,  he  counts 
us  as  if  we  were  righteous. 

Does  Prof.  Swing  believe  that  ?  No,  he 
does  not,  because  if  he  did  he  could  not  write 
these  sentences.  Page  111,  "Truths  for  To- 
day :" 

Faith  indeed,  will  save  a  soul,  but  faith, 
then,  is  not  rigidly  a  belief.  It  is  more,  it  is 
a  friendship,  for  the  word  belief  is  often 
omitted,  and  for  whole  passes  the  love  for 
Christ  reigns  in  its  stead.  In  St.  John,  the 
word  "love"  quite  excludes  the  word  "faith." 
Faith,  therefore,  being  a  devotion  to  a  leader, 
a  mere  belief  is  nothing.  A  man  is  justified 
by  his  active  afl'ections  and  not  by  his  ac- 
quiescence in  some  principle. 

Now,  read  that  sentence,  and  suppose  he 
means  by  justification,  pardon — "  A  man  is 
pardoned  by  his  active  affections  ;"  a  man  is 
counted  righteous  in  the  sight  of  God  by  his 
"active  aflections."  You  can't  read  it  in 
that  way  at  all.  Now,  let  us  suppose  that  it 
means  personal  holiness  ;  that  it  means  to 
make  a  man  personally  righteous,  and  we 
will  see  how  it  will  fit.  "  A  man  is  made 
just — a  man  is  made  holy,  (not  is  pardoned) 
and  made  righteous,  but  is  made  holy  by  his 
active  affections."  You  cannot,  with  any 
degree  of  consistency,  impose  upon  the 
language  of  Prof.  Swing  the  doctrine  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church.  You  cannot  consis- 
tently interpret  his  words  to  mean  that  jus- 
tification is  an  act  of  God's  free  grace  wherein 
He  pardoneth  all  our  sins,  and  counts  us  as  if 
we  were  righteous.     "As  man  by  his  s.n  lost 


the  image  of  God.  so  by  faith,  that  is  devo- 
tion to  Christ,  he  is  by  cross  and  forgiveness 
and  by  conversion,  rewards  of  his  love,  car- 
ried back  to  the  lost  holiness.  *  *  * 
Faith,  as  a  belief  and  a  friendship,  is  good  so 
far  as  it  bears  the  soul  to  this  moral  perfec- 
tion. This  perfection  is  the  city  to  which 
faith  is  an  open  way,  and  the  only  highway 
and  gate;  therefore,  by  the  final  works  or 
condition  a  man  is  justified."  You  can  inter- 
pret this  language  if  you  say  that  justification 
means  personal  character ;  if  you  take  the 
ground  of  the  Romanists  on  the  one  side,  and 
the  Mystics  on  the  other,  and  of  Dr.  Bushnell 
also,  to  the  effect  that  justification  means 
personal  character.  Then,  you  can  reconcile 
them.  And  until  I  have  a  direct  contradic- 
tion from  Prof.  Swing  I  shall  believe  that  is 
what  he  maintains. 

Now  what  is  the  ground  of  justification — 
because  there  are  just  two  views  you  can  take 
on  that  subject;  and  I  shall  express  those 
views,  and  show  where  Prof.  Swing  belongs 
in  this  classification.  There  are  just  two 
possible  positions  that  you  can  maintain 
generically,  though  there  are  specific  varia- 
tions under  at  least  one  of  them.  There  is 
the  subjective  view  of  justification,  and  there 
is  the  objective  view  of  justification.  There 
is  the  idea  that  God  justifies  us  by  looking  at 
what  we  are  personally,  and  there  is  the  idea 
that  he  justifies  us  by  looking  at  another. 
One  is  objective,  and  the  other  is  subjective. 

Now  I  am  going  to  speak  of  subjective 
justification  first— and  it  is  under  this  head 
Professor  Swing  belongs.  The  Roman  Cath- 
olics believe  in  justification,  and  I  mention 
them  first.  What  is  justification  according 
to  them ?  It  is  just  this :  You  take  a  sacra- 
ment. The  result  of  that  is,  there  will  be 
an  infusion  of  holiness.  The  effect  of  that 
will  be  a  good  life.  The  infusion  of  habits 
of  grace  is  your  first  justification,  and  the 
good  life  that  follows  is  your  second  justifi- 
cation. Justification,  in  the  Roman  Catho- 
lic vocabulary,  is  simply  the  good  character 
that  a  man  attains  unto,  which  God  looks  at; 
and  the  main  feature  of  Roman  Catholic  the- 
ology is  that  man  gets  this  good  character 
by  sacranientarian  practice  ;  that  is  to 
say,  you  take  a  sacrament,  be  baptised, 
and  through  the  merits  of  Christ's  death  new 
life  will  be  infused,  whereby  you  become 
cleansed  from  all  sin.  Habits  of  grace  are 
put  in  you,  and  you  live  a  holy  career.  But 
what  God  looks  at  is  you.  —your  personal 


110 


THE  TKIAL  OF  EEV.  DAVID  SWING. 


character  and  your  justification  is  your  holy 
life.  The  Arminians  believe  in  subjective 
justification.  They  say  that  we  are  born  in 
sin,  and  are  dead  in  sin.  Mark  that  to  their 
credit,  because  they  agree  with  us  on  that 
point.  We  go  hand  in  hand  until  we  are  in 
the  territory  covered  by  grace.  That  is  the 
main  diflTercnce  between  us.  They  say  God 
gives  sufficient  grace  to  every  man,  and  they 
say,  too,  Jesus  Christ  died  as  a  propitiatory 
sacrifice.  The  difference  between  us  is  just 
this  :  They  say  that  in  virtue  of  the  death 
of  Christ,  God  has  lowered  the  demands  of 
His  law,  so  that  instead  of  exacting  from  us 
the  obedience  Adam  was  required  to  render, 
God  compromises,  as  it  were,  and  takes  an 
incomplete,  or  what  is  called  an  evangelical 
obedience. 

Now,  justification,  in  the  Arminian's  vo- 
cabulary, is  pardon  ;  and  faith,  in  his  vocab- 
ulary, is  evangelical  obedience,  which  is 
obedience  to  the  law  God  requires  of  us,  and 
because  of  the  death  of  Christ.  Obey  that 
law,  and  you  will  be  pardoned.  That  is 
their  view,  and  it  is  evangelical  because  it  is 
based  upon  the  atonement  of  Christ  and  His 
expiatory  sacrifice. 

Now  I  want  to  speak  of  the  moral  influ- 
ence theory  and  we  will  see  the  difference.  It 
does  not  have  a  word  to  say  about  the  justice 
or  the  sovereignty  of  God,  or  the  law  of  God, 
but  it  starts  at  this  point  in  man's  history, 
and  says  "  here,  man  is  a  sinner,  and  the 
natural  effect  of  sin  is  suffering."  It  is  cer- 
tain that  if  a  man  does  sin,  he  will  suffer, 
and  the  only  way  for  him  to  get  rid  of  his 
suffering,  is  to  get  rid  of  sin,  according  to 
the  moral  influence  theory — he  is  to  get  rid  of 
sin.  If  you  break  your  leg,  you  will  suffer, 
and  the  only  way  to  get  rid  of  the  disease  is 
to  set  the  limb.  The  man  is  diseased  and  the 
only  way  to  get  rid  of  the  hell  that  ensues  is 
to  git  rid  of  the  disease.  Salvation,  accord- 
ing to  the  moral  influence  theory  is  God's 
method  of  cure.  It  is  a  great  hospital  insti- 
tution, and  Jesus  Christ  comes  to  give  us 
medicine.  How  does  he  do  it?  He  comes 
into  this  world,  lives  a  life  of  suffering  and 
ignominy  ;  enters  into  our  position  so  as  to 
know  our  situation ;  he  knows  our  sorrows,  and 
by  his  sympathy  leads  us  to  lead  a  life  like  His. 
Lifting  us  out  of  our  sins  He  lifts  us  out  of  our 
suflerings.  We  go  to  Heaven,  because  we  are 
holy.  That  is  the  theory  that  is  endorsed  by 
James  Preeman  Clarke;  and  we  have  said  more 
than  once,  and  long  before  to-day,  that  if  that 


theory  is  true,  there  is  no  need  of  the  deity 
of  Christ.  I  am  conflrmed  in  that  opinion 
when  a  representative  Unitarian  does  adopt 
that  theory  as  his  explanation  of  the  Gospel. 
That  is  Prof.  Swing's  theory,  as  he  teaches 
it,  or  his  book  greatly  misrepresents  him. 
Thus  in  the  sermon  entitled  "  The  Value  of 
Yesterday,"  we  read: 

Heaven  is  a  height  to  which  men  climb  on 
the  deeds  of  this  life.  Hence  the  Bible  speak- 
ing of  the  dead  coming  to  heaven,  iays  : 
"Their  works  do  follow  them."  Uh  yes, 
these  works  make  the  soul ;  they  weave  its 
life  out  of  their  golden  threads  ;  they  fill  it 
with  wisdom,  and  love,  and  humility,  and 
then  throw  it  forward  to  heaven  us  the  south 
wind  carries  northward  in  spring  the  song  of 
birds  and  the  garlands  of  flowers.  Hope  is 
herself  founded  upon  the  past.  It  is  a  glor- 
ious past  only  that  produces  a  serene,  glorious 
hope.  Yesterday  is  the  foundation  of  the 
Heavenly  City.  Hope  is  the  sweet  blue  sky 
in  which  the  structure  rises.  Oh,  friends, 
combine  both  hope  and  memory.  Coming 
to  the  grave  he  only  can  look  forward  with 
joy  who  can  sweetly  look  back. 

Again  in  "  Salvation  and  morality." 
If  Christ  by  His  death  wrought  out  a  sal- 
vation for  man,  man's  heart  must  be  the  prize 
bought  with  the  sacred  life  and  death.  There 
is  no  salvation  for  a  sinful  soul  except  a  pure 
life.  Hence,  if  Christ  eflectually  assists  man 
to  this  pure  soul,  He  is  man's  Saviour,  and 
the  pure  soul  is  the  salvation.  If  good 
works  are  the  salvation,  Christ  is  still  the 
Saviour.  Hence,  salvation  by  good  works 
and  salvation  by  Jesus  the  Eedeemer  are  so 
inseparably  blended  that  any  effort  to  sepa- 
rate, must  result  in  an  insult  to  the  cross  on 
the  one  hand,  and  to  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount  on  the  other.  It  cannot  be  that 
Christ  would  save  a  race  in  their  sins,  but 
from  their  sins,  and  hence,  the  flight  from 
sin  is  always  a  flight  to  the  bosom  of  God. 
This  is  therefore  the  essence  and  soul  of 
Christianity,  this  upward  flight. 

If  to  us,  lost  in  a  wilderness,  without  a 
sun,  nor  a  star,  nor  a  path  to  guide,  there 
comes  a  benevolent  hermit,  a  dear  Mentor, 
and  leads  us  to  the  right  path,  and  sets  our 
faces  homeward,  he  is  at  once  our  saviour  ; 
but  no  perfect  salvation  will  come  from  our 
going  that  path.  Our  "going"  and  the 
Mentor  combine  in  the  escape,  and  yet  he 
lives  in  memory  as  the  kind  saviour  of  our 
bewildered  hearts. 

Thus  Christ  may  be  the  Saviour  of  man- 
kind, and  yet  leave  our  morality  as  the  final 
embodiment  of  His  salvation.  All  the  work 
of  Christ  contained  in  the  word  Calvary,  or 
atonement,  is  only  the  objective  part  of  the 
soul's  rescue,  whereas  man's  own  personal 
righteousness  is  the  subjective  salvation,  the 
thing  for  which  the  other  exists.  Good 
works  are  the  explanation  of  Calvary. 

Faith,  indeed,  will  save  a  soul,  but  faith, 
then,  is  not  rigidly  a  belief;  it  is  more,  it  is 


PROF.  PATTON'S  AEGUMENT, 


111 


a  friendship,  for  the  word  belief  is  often 
■wholly  omitted,  and  for  whole  pages  the  love 
for  ('hrist  reigns  in  its  stead.  In  St.  John 
the  word  "love"  quite  excludes  the  word 
"faith."  Faith,  therefore,  being  a  devotion 
to  a  leader,  a  mere  belief  is  nothing.  A 
man  is  justified  by  his  active  affections,  and 
not  by  his  acquiescence  in  some  principle. 
TluiL^  faith,  in  the  biblical  sense,  is  not  a  sim- 
ple belief,  but  a  mystical  union  with  Christ, 
such  that  the  works  of  the  Master  are  the 
joy  of  the  disciple.  Works,  that  is,  results, 
— a  new  life — are  the  destiny  of  faith,  the 
reason  of  its  wonderful  play  of  light  upon 
the  religious  horizon.  As  man  by  his  sin 
lost  the  image  of  God,  so  by  faith,  that  is, 
by  devotion  to  Christ,  he  is  by  cross,  and  by 
forgiveness,  and  by  conversion,  rewards  of 
his  love,  carried  back  to  the  lost  holiness. 
Faith  is  not  a  simple  compliment  to  the 
Deity,  for  it  is  not  God  who  needs  human 
praise  so  much  as  it  is  man  who  needs  virtue, 
and  hence  faith  must  be  such  a  oneness 
with  Christ  as  shall  cast  the  spirit  more  and 
more  each  day  toward  that  uprightness  called 
"works,"  which  man  has  lost,  but  which 
only  God  loves.  Hence  James  truly  says, 
a  man  is  not  justified  by  what  he  may 
believe,  but  by  such  a  newness  of  inner 
life  as  may  cast  the  soul  into  harmony 
with  righteousness.  Faith,  as  a  belief  and 
a  friendship,  is  good  so  far  as  it  bears 
the  soul  to  this  moral  perfection.  This  per- 
fection is  the  city  to  which  faith  is  an  open 
way,  and  the  only  highway  and  gate ;  there- 
fore, by  the  final  works  or  condition  a 
man  is  justified. 

Now,  what  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Presby- 
terian church  ?  It  is  the  direct  antithesis  of 
all  this.  It  is  that  justification  is  an  act  of 
God's  free  grace,  wherein  He  freely  pardon- 
eth  all  our  sins,  and  accepteth  us  as  righteous 
in  His  sight,  only  for  the  righteousness  of 
Christ  imputed  to  us.  Jesus  Christ,  accord- 
ing to  our  view,  came  into  this  world,  lived 
and  died,  suffered  an  expiatory  death,  and 
rose  from  the  dead.  Being  delivered  for  our 
offenses.  He  was  raised  for  our  justification. 
His  active  obedience  is  our  obedience  ;  and 
now  we  say  the  Lord  is  our  righteousness. 
Mr.  Moderator,  that  Is  your  belief.  I  know 
it  is,  because  I  know  you  preached  a  sermon, 
and  a  splendid  sermon  it  was,  upon  this  text, 
"Our  own  righteousnesses  are  as  filthy  rags, 
and  our  iniquities  like  the  winds,  have  car- 
ried us  away;"  and  drawing  a  picture  of 
our  righteousness  as  filthy  rags,  you  lifted 
your  hearers  up  into  the  atmosphere  of  Jesus 
Christ,  and  bade  them  remember  that  the 
righteousness  of  Christ  was  hope.  That  is 
the  doctrine  of  the  Presbyterian  Church. 

Now,  what  is  the  means  of  justification  ? 
Justification  is  an  act  of  God's  free  grace, 


wherein  he  freely  pardoneth  all  our  sins  and 
accepteth  us  as  righteous  in  his  sight  only  for 
the  righteousness  of  Christ  imputed  to  us, 
and  received  by  faith  alone.     What  is  faith? 
That  depends  entirely  upon   what  the  object 
faith  is.     Faith   in  a  proposition   is  assent. 
Faith  in  a  person  is  trust.      Now,  mark  me. 
When  Prof.  Swing  represents  the  theology 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church  as  a  naked  assent 
to  an  intellectual  proposition,  as  he  did  im- 
plicitly in  his  plea,  and  as  he  has  done  by 
implication  more  than  once  in  his  sermons, 
he  simply  gave  us  an  illustration  of  history 
repeating  herself;  for,  if  I  remember  right, 
or  have  heard  history  read  intelligently,  the 
great  controver.sy — or  one  of  the  points  of  the 
controversy  in  former  lloman  Catholic  times 
— was  that  the  Protestants  were  claimed  by 
the  Romanists  as  believing  in  salvation  by  a 
naked  assent,  and  hence  arose  the  distinction 
in  Protestant  Latin  theology,  between  assensus 
and  fiducia,  and  he  who  says  that  the  Pres- 
byterian Church  believes  in  salvation  to  con- 
sist in  a  naked  assent  to  a  proposition  does 
not  read  correctly  the  history  of  Presbyteri- 
anism,  or   he  would  know  iha.t  Jiducia  sus- 
tains an  important  place  in  every  recognized 
standard  of  reformation  theology.      We  do 
not  believe,  nor  do  I  know  of  any  who   do 
believe,  that  men  are  saved  by  a  naked  assent 
to  a  proposition.    Faith,  as  it  is  taught  in  the 
standards  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  is  not 
a  naked  assent,  but  it  terminates  upon  a  per- 
son, and  that  person  is  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 
But,  granted  that  we  are  justified  by  faith, 
that  that  is  the   means.     What   are  we  to 
understand  by  the  relation  which  faith  sus- 
tains to  justification,  and   if  you  will  bear 
with  me  a  minute,  we  will  see  that  though 
Prof.  Swing  uses  the  phrase  "justification  by 
faith,"  he  means  something  altogether  differ- 
ent from  what  you   mean,  Mr.  Moderator, 
and  you,  my  brethren  of  the  Presbytery. 

The  Roman  Catholic  believes^in  justifica- 
tion by  faith;  what  does  he  mean  by  it? 
Why,  he  has  two  meanings.  He  has  two 
things  which  he  calls  justification  by  faith. 
There  is  in  the  first  place  his  assensus — his 
naked  assent  to  the  proposition  that  the 
Church  is  infallible.  That  is  "faith"  with 
him.  The  exercise  of  that  faith  leads  him 
to  receive  baptism,  and  the  result  of  the 
Sacrament  is  the  infusion  of  habits  of  grace 
which  constitutes  his  first  justification  ;  and  in 
that  sense  he  says  he  is  justified  by  faith,  but 
he  means  by  justification  something  else  than 


112 


THE  TKIAL  OF  EEV.  DAVID  SWING. 


that,  for  he  distinguishes  between  his  fides  I 
formata  and  his  fides  info?'mis.  His  fides  j 
formnta  is  something  more  than  a  belief.  It 
is  what  an  Arminian  would  call  evangelical 
obedience.  It  is  "good  works."  It  is 
"love  ;"  and  he  says  he  is  justified  by  faith. 
He  means  "good  works;"  and  that  is  his 
second  justification. 

Now,  how  does  the  Arminian  say  we  are 
Justified  by  Faith  ?  He  says  we  are  Justi- 
fied by  Faith  in  this  way  ;  that  justification 
means  pardon,  and  faith  means  evangelical 
obedience,  and  evangelical  obedience  means 
a  fulfillment  of  the  law  as  far  as  God  re- 
quires it  of  Christians  ;  and  fulfilling  that 
law  as  far  as  is  required  of  Christians, 
secures  pardon. 

And  what  is  the  moral  influence  theory  of 
Justification  by  Faith  ?  It  is  just  this  :  faith 
is  the  impulse  under  which  we  go  on  to  good 
deeds.  If  you  do  not  have  faith  in  physic 
you  won't  take  it.  If  you  do  have  faith  in  it 
you  will.  If  you  do  not  have  faith  in  your 
cause  you  will  not  maintain  it.  If  you  do 
have  faith  in  it,  you  will  brave  all  opposition. 
If  you  have  faith  in  Christ  you  will  stand  up 
for  him.  If  you  do  not  have  faith  in  Christ 
you  will  not.  If  you  have  faith  in  Chris- 
tianity, then  you  will  live  the  life  Chris- 
tianity lays  down.  So,  because  faith  is 
such  a  motive  driving  us  in  the  direction 
of  a  good  life,  we  are  justified  by  it;  that  is 
to  say,  we  are  made  holy  by  it ;  for  Justifi- 
cation by  Faith  as  understood  by  the  advo- 
cates of  the  moral  influence  theory  of  the 
atonement  means  making  holy,  and  faith  is 
that  which  drives  us  in  the  direction  of  holi- 
ness.    "  Truths  for  To-Day,"  page  240. 

Moral  perfection  being  the  final  import  of 
the  word  salvation,  the  faith  that  saves  the 
soul  will  need  to.  appear  on  the  arena  as  a 
power  that  will  cast  its  possessor  forward  to- 
ward this  perfection.  If  by  sin  man  fell,  it 
will  be  necessary  for  a  saving  doctrine  in 
order  to  merit  such  a  name,  that  it  shall 
possess  some  power  to  lead  the  heart  back  to 
virtue,  and  it  should  dp  this  by  some  natural 
law,  because  a  perpetual  miracle  may  not  be 
expected  unless  a  constant  force  acting 
naturally  is  impossible.  If  the  Creator 
works  his  will  elsewhere  by  means  of  regular 
orders  of  sequence,  and  makes  the  rain  and 
sun  and  soil  throw  upward  all  the  grand  flora 
of  earth,  if  He  makes  the  great  central  sun 
the  fountain  of  heat  and  motion,  so  that  all 
activity  falls  down  from  it  in  the  great  flood 
of  light,  so  in  the  domain  of  religion  it  may 
well  be  expected  that  God  will  establish  some 
faculty  of  the  soul  that  will  always  push  up- 
ward its  moral  leaves  and  bloom,  or  cherish 


it  in  its  life-giving  warmth.  Keligion  im- 
presses belief  into  its  service,  because  belief 
is  a  permanent  law  of  intellectual  life.  Faith 
is  this  perpetual  natural  force.  It  is  not  an 
arbitrary  basis  of  salvation  any  more  than 
sunlight  and  rain  are  an  arbitrary  basis  of 
flowers.  ?'aith  in  Christ  is  a  rich  soil  of 
which  righteousness  is  the  gorgeous  bloom. 

Now  Prof  Swing  is  not  peculiar  in  that  re- 
spect. Dr.  Bushnell  believes  the  same  thing. 
Jjimes  Freeman  Clarke  believes  the  same 
thing,  and  I  will  find  an  endorsement  of  his 
theolosry  from  the  Unitarians  and  the  Univer- 
salists  of  this  city,  all  of  whom  will  speak  of 
Justification  by  Faith  ;  and  they  will  not 
claim  to  be  evangelical  in  the  sense  that  we 
call  ourselves  evangelical,  although  they 
might  dispute  our  right  to  arrogate  the  ex- 
clusive claim  to  that  title.  Now  if  Justifica- 
tion by  Faith  in  the  theology  of  Prof.  Swing 
simply  means  that  faith  in  Christ  leads  us  to 
a  holy  life,  then  it  is  very  easy  to  see  how 
we  can  say  that  faith  is  a,  principle  not  pecu- 
liar to  Christianity  but  common  to  every- 
thing ;  it  is  that  which  gives  inspiration  to 
every  enterprise. 

We  can  understand  why  it  is  that  he  put 
on  record  such  a  sentence  as  this  :  "  If  there 
is  faith  enough  in  Buddhism  or  Mohamme- 
danism to  save  a  soul,  faith  would  be  the  law 
of  salvation  within  those  systems.  It  would 
be  the  intellect  and  the  sentiment  that  would 
pass  through  those  systems  gathering  up 
their  'ideas  and  extracting  their  passion ; 
hence  the  Mohammedan  has  surpassed  the 
Christian  in  putting  to  death  the  infidel. 
Faith  comes  into  Christianity  thus  not  by  an 
exceptional  decree  of  God  but  by  the  univer- 
sal law  of  nature.  The  mind  is  so  fashioned 
that  its  belief  is  always  working  out  its  sal- 
vation or  destruction." 

I  will  match  that  by  a  sentiment  from 
James  Freeman  Clarke  in  the  last  book  he 
has  written,  "  Common  Sense  in  Keligion," 
page  349.  "  Thus  we  may  say  that  salvation 
by  faith  is  a  universal  law  of  the  moral  uni- 
verse. It  is  no  arbitrary  enactment  or  dog- 
ma of  Christianity  alone,  but  it  is  based  in 
the  very  nature  of  men.  All  moral  and 
spiritual  life  comes  from  faith  in  things  un- 
seen. All  real  knowledge  has  its  roots  in 
faith,  all  moral  power  is  born  out  of  faith; 
all  generous  goodness  and  truth  is  rooted  in 
faith.  He  who  doubts  is  a  lost  soul;  that  is, 
he  has  lost  his  way.  Jesus  came  to  seek  and 
save  these  lost  souls  by  giving  them  some 
clear  convictions  by  which  to  live  and  die," 


PROF.  PATTON'S  ARGUMENT. 


112 


and  so  on,  just  exactly  what  Prof.  Swing 
Bays. 

Now  what  is  the  result  of  Justification? 
The  eflect  of  Justification  as  we  understand 
it,  is  this — for  we  understand  Justification 
by  Faith  simply  to  be  an  act  of  God  pardon- 
ing a  soul  and  counting  it  as  if  it  was  per- 
fectly spotless  and  righteous,  and  on  the 
ground  of  the  imputed  righteousness  of 
Christ,  the  act  of  faith  simply  being  the  lay- 
ing hold  upon  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  or 
as  the  old  theologians  expressed  it:  "The 
hand  which  grasps  the  gift."  According  to 
our  view — the  church  view —  of  Justification 
by  Faith,  the  eflect  of  it  is  this  :  It  is  to  give 
us  personal  assurance.  "We  read  that  there 
is  now  no  condemnation  of  those  who  are  in 
Christ  Jesus ;  who  walk  not  after  the  flesh 
but  after  the  spirit.  "We  read  that,  having 
been  justified  by  faith,  we  have  peace  with 
God  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Now, 
sir,  the  Apostle,  when  he  made  these  state- 
ments, did  not  mean  us  to  say  that  we  should 
pride  ourselves  upon  our  personal  holiness  ; 
he  did  not  mean  there  was  no  condemnation 
because  we  were  good  people,  but  he  meant 
there  was  no  condemnation  because  Jesus 
Christ  was  our  righteousness.  And  another 
efl"ect  of  justification  by  faith  is,  that  we 
grow  in  holiness  "  Fides  sola  quae  justijicat 
sed fides  quae  justificat  non  est  sola,"  was  the 
remark  of  Calvin.  We  do  believe  we  are 
justified  by  faith  alone,  but  we  do  not  believe 
that  the  faith  that  justifies  is  ever  by  itself. 
And  when  Professor  Swing  by  implication 
or  by  direct  statement,  intimates  that  the 
Presbyterian  church,  or  any  branch  of  it, 
supposes  that  they  can  be  saved  by  faith 
alone,  in  such  a  sense  that  they  can  go  to 
heaven  without  being  holy,  then  he  goes  in 
the  very  face  of  the  Confession  of  Faith  ;  for, 
if  the  Apostle  Paul  taught  anything,  he 
taught  that  we  go  to  heaven  on  the  ground 
of  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  and  not  on 
the  ground  of  anything  we  do.  And  yet 
he  taught  also  that  we  must  be  holy  before  we 
can  see  the  Lord.  And  the  only  way  in 
which  these  two  statements  can  be  reconciled 
is  by  adopting  the  Calvinistic  system  ;  and 
the  Calvinistic  system  is  just  this  :  That  God 
Almighty  in  the  exercise  of  His  own  will, 
and  in  the  plenitude  of  His  own  grace,  chose 
a  people  who  should  be  vessels  of  mercy. 
He  chose  to  save  them  by  sending  Jesus 
Christ  to  die  for  them.  He  chose  to  save 
them  by  the  counting  of  Christ's  righteous- 


ness as  their  righteousness.  He  chose  to  save 
them  on  the  ground  of  their  faith  in  Christ; 
He  chose  to  save  them  by  giving  them  the  faith 
in  Jesus  Christ ;  He  chose  to  save  them  by  not 
only  giving  them  the  faith,  which  is  simply  the 
result  of  regeneration,  but  having  begun  the 
good  work  in  them,  he  chose  to  carry  it  on  to 
the  day  of  Jesus  Christ.  Whom  He  predesti- 
nates, them  He  also  calls ;  and  whom  He  calls, 
them  He  also  justifies  ;  and  whom  He  justi- 
fies, them  He  also  glorifies.  He  has  predesti- 
nated us  to  be  conformed  into  the  image  of 
His  son,  that  He  might  be  the  first-born 
among  many  brethren. 

Professor  Swing  docs  not  believe  that  Gos- 
pel and  that  is  the  Gospel  as  the  Presbyte- 
rian church  understands  it. 

Mr.  Moderator,  I  have  taxed  the  patience  of 
this  Presbytery  so  long,  that  only  the  im- 
portance of  the  case,  and  my  own  present 
inability  to  go  further,  prompts  me  to  ask  for 
an  adjournment  at  this  point,  if  there  is  no 
further  business  before  us,  in  order  that  I 
may  finish  to-morrow  morning. 

The  Presbytery,  after  prayer,  then  ad- 
journed until  9:30  o'clock  a.  m.,  May  14th, 
1874. 


Thursday,  May  14,  1874. 

The  Presbytery  met  pursuant  to  adjourn- 
ment, at  9:30  A.  M. 

After  prayer,  and  the  formal  business  of 
the  morning,  the  argument  of  the  prosecutor 
was  resumed. 

ARGUMENT   OF   THE   PROSECUTOR. 
(  Concluded. ) 

Mr.  Moderator  and  Brethren :  i  call 
your  attention  this  morning,  to  the  thir- 
teenth specification,  which  reads  as  follows: 

In  a  sermon  printed  on  or  about  the  15th 
of  September,  1872,  from  II  Peter  iii.  9,  he 
made  use  of  loose  and  unguarded  language, 
respecting  the  providence  of  God. 

In  support  of  that  allegation  I  will  read 
an  abstract  of  that  sermon,  as  it  is  reported 
in  the  Chicago  Times,  16th  of  September, 
1872.     The  text  is  : 

The  Lord  is  not  willing  that  any  should 
perish,  but  that  all  should  come  to  repent- 
ance.    II.  Peter,  3,  9. 

It  was  only  when  a  child  had  been  reared 
in  purity  that  it  appreciated  its  shortcom- 
ings. Coal  miners  were  not  sen>itive  to 
smut  and  dust,  so  mankind,  degraded  by  a 
hopeless  philosephy,  would  care  little  for  an 
accession  of  actual  sin.  The  text  could  not 
be  understood  unless  some  of  the  better 
words  of  the  past  were  retracted,  and  men 
were  taught   to   feel   that   they   possessed  a 


114 


THE  TEIAL  OF  EEV.  DAVID  SWING. 


divine  greatness,  and  a  will-power,  and  a 
soul  that  are  all  very  grand  and  beautiful. 
The  relation  of  God  to  man  is  like  that  of  a 
parent  to  grown-up  children.  Man  was  a 
world  in  himself.  Ho  was  not  a  maehine, 
tut  a  free,  moving  soul.  The  ideal  defender 
of  God  was  wrong.  Under  it  man  had  noth- 
ing to  do.  He  was  borne  along  by  a  resist- 
less fate.  The  text  invited  men  to  think  of 
God  as  a  great  permission,  and  great  kind 
father  of  adult  children.  He  had  put  aside 
absolution  and  became  merely  a  wish. 

To  depreciate  man  and  make  God  a  tyrant 
were  the  two  great  mistakes  of  the  past. 
The  two  better  truths  were  that  man  was 
clothed  with  sublime  power,  and  God  was  a 
broad  permission,  a  giver  of  liberty.  And 
yet,  it  seems  a  popular  impression  that  God 
was  always  lying  in  wait  to  thwart  the  plans 
of  His  children.  *  *  *    _ 

God  was  not  a  destroyer  but  an  advancing 
creator,  always  adding  to  His  empire.  His 
watchword  was  not  annihilation  but  addi- 
tion. Development  was  visible  in  nations 
and  in  man,  and  this  should  lead  to  the 
cheering  thought  that  God  does  not  wish 
that  man  should  perish,  but  rather  that  he 
should  pass  onward  and  upward.  The  deso- 
lations of  earth  were  not  God's  absolute 
decree ;  the  ruined  cities,  from  Thebes  to 
Home,  lay  there  by  man's  request.         * 

*  *  But  God  was  no  more  the 
author  of  the  Persian  or  Jewish  famines  than 
He  was  the  author  of  the  English  palaces  or 
the  Paris  fashions.  The  responsibility  was 
with  man.  Instead  of  being  a  poor  worm 
crawling  through  the  dust,  without  sight  or 
sense  or  force,  he  was  an  angel  of  such 
gigantic  power  that  God  called  him  His  son, 
and  conferred  the  presence  of  His  image. 
*  *  *        God  a  tyrant  and 

man  a  worm  were  the  twin  calamities  of 
religious  thought.  To  be  successful  we  must 
believe  equally  in  God  and  man.  God,  no 
doubt,  loved  human  success.  The  uprising 
of  your  city  from  last  autumn's  ashes,  in 
grandeur  and  magnificence  unrivaled,  should 
be  proof  positive  that  God  was  not  in  that 
conflagration  as  a  vengeance.  Man  was  in  it 
,fts  an  ignorance,  a  neglect,  a  foU}^,  for  the 
iiight  assured  them  that  God  was  not  willing 
that  any  should  perish. 

I  will  read  the  Confession  of  Faith  on  the 
eubject  of  Providence,  and  then  leave  the 
sermon  in  the  hands  of  the  court  without 
eomment. 

God,  the  great  creator  of  all  things,  doth 
ophold,  direct,  dispose  and  govern  all  crea- 
tures, actions  and  things,  from  the  greatest 
even  to  the  least,  by  His  most  wise  and  holy 
providence,  according  to  his  infallible  fore- 
knowledge, and  the  free  and  immutable 
counsel  of  His  own  will,  to  the  praise  of  the 
glory  of  His  wisdom,  power,  justice,  good- 
ness and  mercy. 

II.  Although,  in  relation  to  the  fore- 
knowledge and  decree  of  God,  the  first 
cause,  all  things  came  to  pass  immutably  and 
infallibly,  yet  by  the  same  Providence  He 


ordereth  them  to  fall  out  according  to  the 
nature  of  second  causes,  either  necessarily, 
freely  or  contingently. 

Professor  Swing  intimated  in  his  declara- 
tion that  the  Confession  of  Faith  squinted 
towards  fatalism.     Does  that? 

God  in  His  ordinary  providence  maketh 
use  of  means,  yet  is  free  to  work  without, 
above  and  against  them,  at  His  pleasure. 

IV.  The  Almighty  power,  unsearchable 
wisdom  and  infinite  goodness  of  God,  so  far 
manifest  themselves  in  His  providence  that 
it  extendeth  itself  even  to  the  first  fall,  and  all 
other  sins  of  angels  and  men,  and  that  not 
by  a  bare  permission. 

Professor  Swing  defines  God  to  be  a  per- 
mission. 

But  such  as  hath  joined  with  it  a  most 
wise  and  powerful  bounding,  and  other- 
wise ordering  and  governing  of  them,  in  a 
manifold  dispensation,  to  His  own  holy  ends, 
yet  so  as  the  sinfulness  thereof  proceedeth 
only  from  the  creature,  and  not  from  God ; 
who,  being  most  holj'  and  righteous,  neither 
is  nor  can  be  the  author  or  approver  of  sin. 

V.  The  most  wise,  righteous  and  gracious 
God,  doth  oftentimes  leave  for  a  season  liis 
own  children  to  manifold  temptations  and 
the  corruption  of  their  own  hearts,  to  chas- 
tise them  for  their  former  sins,  or  to  discover 
unto  them  the  hidden  strength  of  corruption 
and  deceitfulness  of  their  own  hearts,  that 
they  may  be  humbled  ;  and  to  raise  them  to 
a  more  close  and  constant  dependence  for 
their  support  upon  himself,  and  to  make 
them  more  watchful  against  all  future  occa- 
sions of  sin,  and  for  sundry  other  just  and 
holy  ends. 

VI.  As  for  those  wicked  and  ungodly  men 
whom  God,  as  a  righteous  judge,  for  former 
sins  doth  blind  and  harden  ;  from  them  he 
not  only  withholdeth  his  grace,  whereby 
they  might  have  been  enlightened  in  their 
understandings,  and  wrought  upon  in  their 
hearts ;  but  sometimes  also  withdraweth  the 
gifts  which  they  had ;  and  exposeth  them  to 
such  objects  as  their  corruption  makes  occa- 
sion of  sin;  and  withal,  gives  them  over  to 
their  own  lusts,  the  temptations  of  the  world, 
and  the  power  of  Satan  ;  whereby  it  comes 
to  pass  that  they  harden  themselves,  under 
those  means  which  God  useth  for  the  soften- 
ing of  others. 

VII.  As  the  providence  of  God  doth,  in 
general,  reach  to  all  creatures;  so,  after  a 
most  special  manner,  it  taketh  care  of  his 
church,  and  disposeth  all  things  to  the  good 
thereof. 

Now,  the  question  which  I  address  to  the 
Court  is  simply  this  :  Understanding  that 
this  passage  from  the  Confession  of  Faith — 
this  chapter  which  I  have  read — is  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith  of  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
I  ask  you  whether  Prof.  Swing  has  or  has 
not  used  loose  and  unguarded  language  in 
reference   to    Divine    Providence   when    he 


PKOF.  PATTON'S  ARGUMENT. 


115 


preached  the  sermon,  an  abstract  of  which  I 
have  read  ? 

In  many  of  the  specifications  on  which  I 
have  commented,  the  charge  has  not  been 
that  he  believes  error,  but  that  he  teaches 
error.  I  have  taken  those  passages,  and,  as 
far  as  practicable,  have  presented  the  con- 
text. All  the  sermons  from  which  quota- 
tions have  been  made  are  in  evidence  and 
are  accessible  to  the  members  of  the  Court. 
They  can  see  whether  I  have  done  injustice 
in  quotations  I  have  made,  and  it  will  be  the 
privilege  of  the  defense,  if  such  injustice  has 
been  done,  to  make  it  apparent.  It  was  sim- 
ply impossible  that  I  could  read  all  the  ser- 
mons through  in  order  that  I  might  justify 
my  use  of  one  or  two  sentences  by  way  of 
comment.  Now  it  might  be  argued,  and 
perhaps  the  opinion  has  been  expressed  be- 
fore this,  that  the  utterances  of  error  or  of 
sentences,  alleged  to  be  error,  is  a  very  dif- 
ferent thing  from  the  direct  affirmation  of 
his  disbelief  of  certain  doctrines.  Now  the 
point  which  we  are  arguing  in  this  charge  is 
not  that  Prof.  Swing  does  not  believe  this 
doctrine.  "We  shall  have  something  to  say 
on  that  subject  under  the  second  charge. 
But  if  he  does  believe  the  truth  and  teaches 
error,  so  much  the  worse.  If  you  can  prove 
that  a  man  is  incompetent — that  he  is  igno- 
rant of  the  system  of  drugs — that  might  be 
a  reason  for  his  not  administering  drugs ; 
but  be  he  ever  so  well  educated  and  ever  so 
familiar  with  the  Pharmacopoeia,  if  you  can 
prove  as  a  matter  of  fact  that  he  administers 
poison,  then,  I  do  not  care  how  well  he  is 
educated,  I  am  not  going  to  that  shop. 

Now,  sir,  the  question  at  this  point  is  not 
what  Prof.  Swing  believes,  but  what  does  he 
say  ?  For  it  is  as  a  teacher  that  we  are 
making  charges  just  now  against  him.  Nor 
it  is  necessary  that  language  used  by  Prof. 
Swing  shall  be  proven  to  be  contrary  to  the 
Confession  of  Faith,  or  to  be  incapable  of  a 
construction  favorable  to  sound  doctrine,  for 
this  Presbytery  to  make  it  a  subject  of  judi- 
cial action  ;  because  granting  that  in  certain 
expressions  used,  it  is  possible  that  a  favor- 
able construction  can  be  put  upon  them  ;  if 
the  natural  meaning  of  the  language  and  the 
natural  construction  which  the  human  mind 
would  put  upon  it  be  one  which  is  unfavor- 
able to  sound  doctrine  and  to  vital  piety, 
then  it  is  the  duty  of  this  court  to  tell  Prof 
Swing  so — to  express  its  disapproval,  and  to 
express  its  disapproval  in  terms  measured  by 


the  offense.  Now,  to  show  that  I  am  correct 
in  this  position,  and  that  I  have  the  prece- 
dents of  the  Presbyterian  Church  upon  my 
side,  let  me  quote  from  the  Digest.  This 
time  I  shall  quote  from  the  New  School  Di- 
gest— the  delivercnces  of  theOcneral  Asscm- 
bly  on  the  subject  of  doctrine.  In  the  year 
1763  there  was  a  decision  in  the  case  of  Mr. 
Harker.  The  Synod  proceed  to  consider  Mr. 
Barker's  principles,  collected  from  his  book  by 
the  committee,  which  are  in  substance  as 
follows  : 

1.  That  the  covenant  of  grace  is  in  such  a 
sense  conditional,  that  fallen  mankind  in 
their  unregenerate  state,  by  the  general 
assistance  given  to  all  under  the  Gospel,  have 
a  sufficient  ability  to  fulfill  the  conditions 
thereof,  and  so,  by  their  own  endeavors,  to 
insure  to  themselves  regenerating  grace  and 
all  saving  blessings. 

2.  That  God  has  bound  himself  by  promise 
to  give  them  regenerating  grace,  upon  their 
fulfilling  what  he  (Mr.  Harker)  calls  the 
direct  conditions  of  obtaining  it;  and, 
upon  the  whole,  makes  a  certain  and  an  in- 
fallible connection  between  their  endeavors 
and  the  aforesaid  blessings. 

3.  That  God's  prescience  of  future  events 
is  previous  to,  and  not  dependant  on  His  de- 
crees ;  that  His  decrees  have  no  influence  on 
His  own  conduct,  and  that  the  foresight  of 
faith  was  the  ground  of  the  decree  of  elec- 
tion. 

Now,  what  does  the  General  Assembly 
say? 

It  is  further  observed,  that  he  often  uses 
inaccurate,  unintelligible  and  dangerous 
modes  of  expression. 

That  is  a  parallel  case. 

That  tend  to  lead  people  into  false  notions 
in  several  important  matters,  as  that  Adam 
was  the  federal  fatlier  of  his  posterity  in  the 
second  covenant  as  well  as  in  the  first;  that 
the  regenerate  are  not  in  a  state  of  probation 
for  heaven,  and  several  such  like. 

The  synod  judge  tliat  these  principles  are 
of  a  hurtful  and  dangerous  tendency,  giving 
a  false  view  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  per- 
verting it  into  a  now-modelled  covenant  of 
works,  and  misrepresent  the  doctrine  of  the 
divine  decrees,  as  held  by  the  best  Reformed 
Churches  and  in  fine,  are  contrary  to  the 
word  of  God,  and  our  approved  standards  of 
doctrine. 

Then  in  1778  there  was  a  decision  in  the 
case  of  Rev.  Hezek'.ah  Balch,  a  part  of  which 
I  will  quote,  page  301  of  the  Digest. 

In  regard  to  the  subject  of  false  doctrine, 
in  discoursing  from  Psalm  LI,  5,  and  Isa 
XLVIII,  8,  nothing  seems  necessary  to  be 
added  to  the  remarks  made  on  the  subject  of 
original  sin,  as  contained  in  Mr.  lialch's 
creed,    except    that  he   charges   Calvinistic 


IIG 


THE  TRIAL  OF  EEV.  DAVID  SWING. 


Divines  with  holding  sentiments  relative  to 
infants  which  they  do  not  hold. 

Now  that  seems  to  be  a  parallel  case. 

And  that  he  makes  positive  declarations  in 
regard  to  the  state  of  infants,  when  it  has 
pleased  a  wise  and  holy  God  to  be  silent  on 
this  subject  in  the  revelation  of  his  will.  *  * 

On  the  whole  your  committee  recom- 
mend that  Mr.  Balch  be  required  to  acknow- 
ledge before  the  assembly  that  he  v/as  wrong 
in  the  publication  of  his  creed  ;  that  in  the 
particulars  specified  above,  he  renounce  the 
errors  pointed  out ;  that  he  engage  to  teach 
nothing  hereafter  of  a  similar  nature  ;  that 
the  moderator  admonish  him  of  the  divisions, 
disorder,  trouble,  and  inconvenience  which 
he  has  occasioned  to  the  church  and  its  judi- 
catories by  his  imprudent  and  unwarrantable 
conduct,  and  warn  him  against  doing  any- 
thing in  time  to  come  that  may  tend  to  pro- 
duce such  serious  and  lamentable  evils. 

That  was  a  long  time  ago.  Then  in  the 
year  1810 — still  nearer  to  our  own  time — 
came  the  case  of  the  Rev.  "William  C.  Davis. 
The  attention  of  the  Assembly  was  called  to 
certain  doctrines  which  he  had  proclaimed. 
Page  302  of  the  Digest. 

Doctrine  I. — That  the  active  obedience  of 
Christ  constitutes  no  part  of  that  righteous- 
ness by  which  asinner  is  justified. 

Doctrine  II. — That  obedience  to  the  mor- 
al law,  was  not  required  as  the  condition  of 
the  covenant  of  works.  Page  178,  180 — and 
soon,  and  then  Resolved,  That  without  decid- 
ing on  the  question  whether  these  sentiments 
are  contrary  to  our  Conlession  of  Faith,  the 
Assembly  consider  the  mode  in  which  they 
are  expressed  as  unhappy,  and  calculated  to 
mislead  the  reader. 

So  it  seems  that  the  General  Assembly  goes 
so  far  as  to  exercise  its  Episcopal  functions 
to  the  extent  of  telling  a  man  that  he  must 
not  be  unhappy  in  his  expressions. 

I  quote  further,  page  303. 

Resolved,  That  the  Assembly  consider  the 
expressions  in  the  pages  referred  to  as  very 
unguarded ;  and  so  far  as  they  intimate  it  to 
be  the  author's  opinion,  that  a  person  may 
live  in  an  habitual  and  allowed  sin,  and  yet 
be  a  Christian,  the  Assembly  considers 
them  contrary  to  the  letter  and  spirit  of  the 
Confession  of  Faith  of  our  church,  and  in 
their  tendency  highly  dangerous. 

Resolved,  That  the  Assemblj'  do  consider 
this  last-mentioned  doctrine  contrary  to  the 
the  Confession  of  Faith  of  our  church. 

In  several  other  instances  there  are  doc- 
trines asserted  and  advocated,  as  has  been 
already  decided,  contrary  to  the  Comession 
of  Faith  of  our  church,  and  the  word  of  God  ; 
■which  doctrines  the  Assembly  feel  constrained 
to  pronounce  to  be  of  very  dangerous  tend- 
ency ;  and  the  Assembly  do  judge,  and  do 
hereby  declare,  that  the  preaching  or  pub- 
lishing of  them,  ought  to  subject  the  person 


or  persons  so  doing  to  be  dealt  with  by  their 
respective  Presbyteries,  according  to  the  dis- 
cipline of  the  church,  relative  to  the  propa- 
gation of  errors. 

This  was  a  decision  in  reference  to  a  book 
which  had  been  published  by  Mr.  Davis,  in 
which  certain  objectionable  passages  were 
found;  and  this  is  the  Assembly's  decision 
upon  the  book,  not  upon  the  inan. 

Then  came  the  case  of  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Craighead,  about  which  we  shall  read  and  of 
which  the  piapers  have  already  advised  us. 
The  particular  point  in  the  Craighead  case  I 
shall  allude  to  presently,  but  I  wish  to  say 
here  that,  while  the  General  Assembly  ac- 
quitted Mr.  Craighead  of  the  charge  of 
heresy,  and  for  reasons  which  I  shall  adduce 
and  which  I  shall  show  are  not  relevant  to 
the  case  in  hand,  they  nevertheless  did  go  so 
far  as  to  say  this  :  (page  305.) 

They  appear  to  have  thought  that  a  denial 
of  immediate  agency  was  a  denial  of  all  real 
agency.  It  deserves  special  regard  here,  that 
our  Confession  takes  no  notice  of  these  nice 
distinctions  about  the  mode  in  which  the 
Holy  Ghost  operates.  It  usually  mentions 
the  Word  and  the  Spirit  together,  and  the 
former  as  the  instrument  of  the  latter. 
And  they  who  believe  in  the  immediate 
agency  of  the  Spirit  do  not  exclude  the  in- 
strumentality of  the  AVord  ;  they,  however, 
explain  it  in  a  difl'erent  way  from  those  who 
hold  that  there  is  no  agency  of  the  Spirit 
distinct  from  the  Word. 

That  is  to  say,  in  this  particular  case — the 
Craighead  case — the  language  was  so  used 
as  that  it  could  be  construed  in  a  sense  fa- 
vorable to  the  writer,  and  being  capable  of 
that  favorable  construction,  the  Assembly 
decided  that  the  charge  of  heresy  was  not 
sustained.  The  decision,  however,  goes  on 
to  say  : 

But  this  is  the  more  favorable  construc- 
tion ;  there  is  another,  which  if  not  more 
probable  is  more  obvious.  Mr.  Craighead 
may  be  understood  as  teaching  that  the  only 
real  agency  of  the  Spirit  was  in  inspiring 
the  Scriptures,  and  confirming  them  by  sisyns 
and  miracles.  There  is  much  in  his  dis- 
course that  has  this  bearing  ;  and  undoubt- 
edly this  is  the  common  impression  among 
the  people  where  it  is  best  known. 

For  it  seems  the  Assembly  took  some 
notice  of  that — common  rumor. 

This  was  the  idea  of  the  Synod  of  Ken- 
tucky, when  they  condemned  him  ;  and  this 
is,  in  fact,  denying  the  reality  of  the  opera- 
tion of  the  Spirit  in  our  days  ;  and  whether 
his  expressions  have  been  fairly  interpreted 
or  not,  they  are  dangerous  and  ought  to  be 
condemned.  In  justice  to  Mr.  Craighead, 
however,  it  ought  to  be  remembered  that  he 
utterly  disclaims  this  meaning,  in  his  defense 


PROF.  PATTON'S  APvGUMENT. 


117 


sent  up  to  this  AssoniLly.  And  wonld  it  be 
fair  to  continue  to  cliar2;e  upon  liim  opinions 
which  he  solemnly  disavows ''  Of  the  sincerity 
of  his  disavowal  God  is  the  judi^e.  The  con- 
clusion is  that,  the  first  cluirge,  though  sup- 
ported by  strong  probabilities,  is  not  so  con- 
clusively established  as  to  remove  all  doubt, 
because  the  words  adduced  in  proof  will 
bear  a  diflerent  construction  from  tliat  put 
on  them  by  the  Presbytery  and  Synod. 

Now,  what  is  the  point?  Mr.  Craighead 
was  charged  with  heresy  ;  he  was  acquitted 
of  the  charge  of  heresy  on  the  ground  that 
the  language  used  by  him  was  capable  of  a 
favorable  construction,  and  on  the  further 
ground  that  being  capable  of  that  more  favor- 
able construction,  he  solemnly  disavowed  the 
charge  alleged  against  him  ;  yet  nevertheless 
in  the  face  of  the  fact  that  his  language  was 
capable  of  this  favorable  construction,  and  in 
face  of  the  further  fact  that  he  absolutely  and 
in  an  unqualified  way,  disavowed  the  alleged 
heresy,  the  Assembly  did  pronounce  his 
statements  as  dangerous,  and  affirmed  that 
they  ought  to  be  condemned.  Now,  Mr. 
Moderator,  if  we  are  to  allow  ecclesiastical 
precedent  to  have  any  weight  with  us,  then, 
even  though  it  were  shown  that  the  language 
of  Prof.  Swing  is  capable  of  a  favorable  con- 
struction, and  even  in  the  event  of  a  most 
explicit  disavowal  on  his  part  of  every  item  of 
heresy  charged  to  his  account,  yet  it  will  be  the 
duty  of  this  Presbytery  to  express  its  solemn 
disapproval  of  the  language  which  has  caused 
such  a  wide-spread  mistrust  of  his  theological 
position. 

The  opinions  which  I  have  offered  respect- 
ing Prof.  Swing's  theology  are  the  result  of 
very  careful  study  of  his  discourses.  It  is  in 
view  of  the  fact  that  I  have  made  those  ser- 
mons a  matter  of  careful  study,  and  of  the 
further  fact  that  the  doctrinal  issues  involved 
are  of  such  importance,  that  I  feel  justified  in 
speaking  at  what  may  appear  to  be  even  a 
wearisome  length  on  subjects  which  we  are 
all  familiar  with. 

I  left  off  yesterday  with  the  specification 
relating  to  Prof.  Swing's  views  on  the  doc- 
trine of  Justification  by  Faith.  His  position 
on  that  doctrine  is  not  a  matter  of  question. 
If  the  court  will  have  the  goodness  to  read 
his  sermon  on  "  Good  "Works,"  and  also  his 
sermon  on  "  Faith,"  I  think  we  shall  be  of  a 
unanimous  opinion  that  the  views  of  Prof. 
Swing  upon  this  cardinal  doctrine  of  Protes- 
tantism are  not  the  views  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church.  I  object  to  the  views  of  Prof.  Swing. 
The  objections  are  grave.     The  view  of  Prof. 


Swing  on  the  subject  of  salvation  is,  that  "  he 
only  can  look  forward  with  joy  who  can 
sweetly  look  back  ;"  that  "  heaven  is  a  height 
to  which  men  climb  on  the  deeds  of  thi.< 
life  ;"  and  if  I  were  called  to  preach  such  a 
Gospel,  if  I  were  commissioned  to  preach 
Jesus  Christ  in  such  terminology,  I  should  be 
saddened.  It  would  bo  impossible  for  me  to 
go  to  a  dying  man  and  tell  him  that  if  he  be- 
lieved in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  he  should  be 
saved.  It  would  be  impossible  for  me  to  go, 
as  my  brotlicr  McLcod  has  had  to  go,  to  the 
prisoner,  expecting  daily  to  pay  the  penalty 
of  his  crime,  and  tell  him  that  in  the  last 
hour  of  his  life,  if  he  believed  in  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  ho  would  receive  mercy  at  the 
hands  of  Him  who  said  to  one  who  was  His 
companion  in  suffering,  "This  day  thoushalt 
be  with  me  in  Paradise."  I  object  to 
the  views  of  Professor  Swing  because 
they  do  injustice  to  the  righteousness 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Mr.  Moderator, 
the  gospel  which  we  preach,  is  the  gospel  of 
the  righteousness  of  Christ.  It  is  the  gospel 
which  has  lent  inspiration  to  every  move- 
ment whereby  the  cause  of  Christ  has  been 
furthered.  It  is  the  gospel  of  Charles  Hodge ; 
of  Albert  Barnes;  of  Charles  Spurgeon.  It 
is  the  gospel  of  the  missionary  and  the  evan- 
gelist. It  is  the  gospel  of  Moody,  and  Sankey. 
It  is  the  gospel  of  the  Sunday  School,  and 
it  is  the  gospel  of  every  child  in  the  Sunday 
who  lifts  his  voice  to  sing  the  "  old,  old  story 
of  Jesus  and  his  love." 

Now,  I  will  read  a  passage  from  a  Scotch 
letter  in  reference  to  the  recent  revival  in 
Edinburgh,  and  which  has  only  just  now 
been  put  in  my  hands. 

As  you  know,  Messrs.  Moody  and  Sankey 
are  there,  both  working  and  singing.  Prob- 
ably the  Lord  is  blessing  their  work,  and 
making  them  greatly  ueslul ;  but  to  us  they 
seem  merely  as  sickles  passing  thruugh  the 
well-ripened  fields  of  grain,  white  months 
ago  to  the  harvest.  We  had  am  j.'.e  opportunity 
during  four  months' stay  in  Edinburgh  to 
learn  the  religious  feelings  and  positions  of 
the  people.  It  is  a  city  exalted  as  to  heaven 
in  point  of  privilege.  Its  religious  and 
moral  life  is  a  glorious  vindication  of  the  ex- 
cellence of  doctrinal  preaching.  The  Edin- 
buro-h  ministers  are  not  afraid  to  preach  doc- 
trin'e.  and  what  is  called  "hard  doctrine." 
They  have  not  failed  to  declare  the  whole  coun- 
sel of  God;  the  trumpet  tones  of  Knox  echo  in 
these  pulpits  still.  There  is  no  courting  peo- 
ple to  church  with  sensational  subjects ;  no 
oflering  of  sugar  plum  preaching  ;  very  little 
florid  rhetoric  ;  ;no  last  new  opera  singer 
and  expeusive  choir.     None  of  these— nierely 


THE  TKIAL  OF  KEV.  DAVID  SWING. 


118 

the  truth  in  Christ  Jesus.  And  what  is  the 
result?  On  Sunday  in  Edinburgh,  the  streets 
at  service  hour,  three  times  a  day,  are 
crowded  as  our  streets  on  the  Fourth  of  July 
The  last  stroke  of  the  bell,  and  the  streets  are 
as  deserted  as  midnight.  These  mighty  throngs 
have  gone  into  the  house  of  David,  to  hear 
"sound  doctrine."  Edinburgh  has  been  de- 
ficient in  Sabbath  Schools,  but  year  after 
year  the  church  has  swelled  its  numbers  from 
the  children  of  its  fiimilies,  who  are  always 
taken  to  church  for  the  pastor's  instruction, 
and'afp^aught  at  home  by  their  parents. 

I  object  to  the  preaching  of  Prof.  Swing, 
because  he  preaches  a  doctrine  which  leads 
either  to  self-righteousness  or  to  dispair.  He 
teaches  that  we  are  saved  by  our  own  works. 
He  teaches  us  that  faith  saves  us  because  it 
leads  to  a  holy  life.  He  teaches  that  salva- 
tion means  a  holy  life,  therefore,  he  who  is 
expectant  of  salvation  and  has  assurance  of 
hope  in  Heaven,  is  he  who  is  holy,  and  he 
hopes  for  Heaven,  according  to  Prof.  Swing's 
preaching,  or  the  legitimate  consequences  of 
that  preaching,  in  the  ratio  of  his  personal 
holiness.  Now,  that  is  not  the  doctrine  that 
we  learn  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Komans. 
"  Where  is  boasting  then  ?  It  is  excluded. 
By  what  law  ?  Of  works  ?  Nay  ;  but  by  the 
law  of  faith."  If  we  cannot  take  comfort  in 
Gur  personal  holiness,  if  a  man  is  so  constitu- 
ted that  he  cannot  feel  that  his  own  righteous- 
ness is  enough  to  save  him,  and  that  what  he 
has  done  himself  is  not  sufHcient  to  give  him 
hope  of  Heaven,  then  the  only  thing  he  can 
do  is  to  fall  down  in  despair  ;  for  the  religion 
of  Prof.  Swing  does  not  offer  a  man  any 
hope  but  that ;  and  so  far  from  the  Presby- 
terian church  teaching  the  doctrines  of  des- 
pair, I  say  that  the  teaching  of  Prof.  Swing 
is  the  doctrine  of  despair,  unless  it  is  the  doc- 
trine of  self-righteousness.  And  I  object  to 
the  teaching  of  Prof.  Swing  upon  the  subject 
of  Justification  by  Faith,  and  upon  the  sub- 
ject of  Salvation  on  the  ground  that  he 
makes  Christianity  simply  an  exalted  mo- 
rality. The  reason  why  Christianity  is 
better  than  Hindooism,  is  because  the 
morality  of  Christianity  is  better ;  the 
reason  Christ  is  a  better  Saviour  than  Con- 
fucius is  because  he  is  a  better  man  than  Confu- 
cius ;  the  reason  why  Christ  is  a  better  Saviour 
than  Socrates  is  because  he  had  a  wider  range 
than  Socrates,  and  was  a  better  man  than 
Socrates,  and  a  greater  teacher  than  Socrates, 
and  therefore  has  more  right  than  Socrates 
to  be  called  the  mediator  between  God  and 


man.  He  is  the  hest  Saviour  that  the  world 
has  ever  seen. 

I  pass  now  to  the  closing  specifications  of 
the  first  charge. 

Mr.  Moderator  these  specifications  have  a 
historical  interest  as  related  to  the  prosecu- 
tion. The  history  of  this  specification  is  the 
history  of  the  relation  which  Prof.  Swing 
and  myself  sustain  to  each  other.  Little  did 
I  think,  when  I  wrote  the  editorial  of  last 
fall,  that  it  would  culminate  in  a  scene  like 
this.  When  I  took  charge  of  the  Interior  I 
knew  of  the  doubts  which  had  been  ex'pressed 
with  respect  to  Prof.  Swing's  theology.  I 
had  seen  the  newspapers  of  other  churches 
calling  in  question  his  opinions  on  the  sub- 
ject of  inspiration,  and  entering  their  pro- 
tests against  the  Presbytery  of  Chicago,  for 
sitting  in  silence  while  one  of  its  prominent 
members  gave  utterance  to  thoughts  which 
were  in  direct  violation  of  the  Confession  of 
of  Faith,  and  which  tended  to  overthrow  the 
authority  and  integrity  of  God's  Holy  Word. 
It  was  with  a  great  deal  of  difiidence  and 
after  much  reluctance  that  I  entered  upon  a 
review  of  his  sermons  ;  and  those  who  have 
followed  that  discussion,  or  who  remember 
anything  about  the  editorial,  will  remember 
something  about  the  spirit  in  which  it  was 
written,  and  the  language  in  which  it  was 
couched.  If  I  know  my  own  heart,  I 
know  that  I  wrote  it  in  the  kindest  spirit. 
I  wrote  it  in  an  apologetic  fashion,  and  if 
anything  was  said  in  it  which  was  calculated 
to  injure  Prof.  Swing's  feelings  I  was  sorry 
for  it,  and  here  make  that  public  acknow- 
ledgment. I  wrote  that  editorial  with  the 
idea  of  apologizing  for  the  views  of  Prof. 
Swing  so  far  as  I  could — so  far  as  it  was 
possible  to  show  that  the  interpretations 
which  had  been  put  upon  his  language  were 
perhaps  exaggerations;  and  so  with  the  best 
intent,  the  most  charitable  spirit,  the  kindest 
feeling,  and  with  the  utmost  desire  to  vin- 
dicate the  reputation  of  a  Christian  brother 
whose  hand  at  that  time  I  had  not  grasped, 
and  whose  face  I  had  not  seen  more  than 
once  or  twice — I  was  constrained  as  an  ex- 
ponent of  religious  opinion  (so  far  as  I  was 
an  exponent)  in  a  newspaper — I  was  con- 
strained to  say  something  by  way  of  protest 
against  a  sentiment  which,  if  it  expressed  his 
honest  opinion,  did,  in  my  judgment,  carry 
with  it  thedownfall  of  God's  Bible.  And,  sir, 
I  was  hoping  that  when  he  replied,  if  he  re- 
plied at  all  to  that  editorial,  he  would  have 


PKOF.  PATTON'S  AKGUMENT. 


119 


something  to  say  by  way  of  explanation, 
that  the  explanation  would  be  couched  in 
sucli  frank  and  straight  forward  terms  as 
that  it  would  silence  doubt,  and  reinstate 
him  in  the  confidence  of  those  who  loved 
him,  but  who  nevertheless,  did  feel  that, 
occupying  th»)  position  he  did  occupy,  it  was 
not  right  for  him  to  challenge  the  authority 
of  any  portion  of  the  inspired  word  of  God. 
You  know  something  of  the  history  of 
that  controversy.  I  shall  not  go  into  the  de- 
tails. I  was  disappointed.  So  far  from  the 
explanation  meeting  my  views  of  what  was 
due — and  I  say  my  views  in  all  modesty ;  for 
John  Henry  Newman  in  his  great  book, 
"  The  Grammar  of  Assent,''  makes  a  remark 
\  which  I  take  home  to  myself  sometimes, 
when  he  says  there  are  occasions  when  "egot- 
\ism  is  true  modesty."  "Well,  I  say  that 
|Prof.  Swing  did  not  meet  what  I  regarded 
^s  the  true  demands  of  the  case,  and,  inas- 
much as  I  had  the  sole  responsibility  of  the 
journal  upon  my  hands,  I  could  not  avoid  a 
dficussion  which  was  thus  forced  upon  me. 
I1\I  made  mistakes  in  that  discussion,  I  am 
fre  to  say  here,  with  the  frankness  which 
cha-acterized  one  of  the  witnesses  upon  the 
stam,  that  "  it  is  human  to  err."  But  I  did 
desi\e — God  is  my  witness — to  conduct  that 
discvtesion  in  a  way  which  was  creditable  to 
my  psition  as  a  gentleman  and  to  my  posi- 
tion a  a  member  of  the  Presbyterian  church, 
and  all  co-presbyter  of  Prof.  Swing.  How 
far  I  h\ve  carried  out  my  desire  and  how  far 
the  resut  has  accorded  with  my  wish  I  leave 
for  the  iiblic  to  say  ;  and  I  will  bow  respect- 
fully to  heir  verdict. 

Now,  Ir.  Moderator,  and  brother  Pres- 
byters— tie  views  brought  out  by  Prof. 
Swing  inVthe  course  of  that  controversy 
were  of  suc\  a  character,  were  so  pronounced 
in  their  hosuity  to  what  I  regard  as  the  doc- 
trine of  plehry  inspiration— a  doctrine,  sir, 
which,  if  it  teded  it,  has  received  the  sanc- 
tion of  this  Ibdy  not  long  ago  in  a  paper 
prepared  by  Ae  of  the  most  venerable  and 
one  of  the  ma  respected  members  of  this 
body — I  say  tm  views  of  Prof.  Swing  were 
in  such  utter  coHict  with  that  doctrine  that 
I  did  not  hesitanto  say  on  one  occasion  that 
I  thought  that,  lading  such  views,  a  minis- 
ter with  the  vowsV  the  Presbyterian  church 
upon  him  could  it  consistently  remain  in 
her  communion  as  Wiinister. 

Those  among  yoWho  have  watched  that 
controversy  know  h^  jt  advanced  and  you  ' 


can  easily  imagine  how  one  thing  should 
lead  on  to  another  thing  until,  in  a  final  edi- 
torial upon  the  subject,  with  no  malice  in  my 
heart,  and  with  no  other  desire  in  my  soul, 
than  that  of  eliciting  from  Prof.  Swing  such 
an  expression  of  his  views  as  should  satisfy 
those  who  stood  in  doubt — for  I  knew  I  was 
not  alone  in  standing  in  doubt — I  knew,  sir, 
that  there  were  members  in  this  Presbytery 
who  had  expressed  doubt,  and  who  would 
express  it  to-day  if  they  were  to  testify — I 
did  say  that  there  were  those  who  doubted, 
and  I  was  among  them,  whether  Prof. 
Swing  believed  even  that  Christ  was  God — 
and  other  doctrines  which  just  now  I  do  not 
recall.  They  were  honest  doubts  ;  they  were 
doubts  based  upon  an  honest  perusal  of  his 
public  writings ;  and,  in  connection  with  the 
expression  of  those  doubts,  I  said  I  hoped 
that  Prof.  Swing's  published  utterances  had 
done  him  great  injustice;  and  I  ofl'crcd  to 
place  the  columns  of  the  Interior  at  his  dis- 
posal, in  order  that  he  might  rectify  any 
mistake  that  I  may  have  made,  or  correct 
any  false  impressions  which  I  may  have  pro- 
duced. If  that  was  not  what  a  manly  and 
Christian  spirit  would  dictate,  then,  sir,  I 
am  at  fault  and  have  gro.ssly  misapprehended 
the  laws  of  Christian  courtesy  and  the  laws 
of  dignified  Christian  journalism.  I  have  no 
word  to  say  in  self-vindication — nothing  to 
say  in  reference  to  those  who  honestly  and 
sincerely  differ  with  me  as  to  the  propriety 
of  my  expressing  the  doubts  ;  but  I  did  have 
them,  and  I  did  express  them ;  and  the  ex- 
pression of  them  has  brought  upon  me  a 
weight  of  odium  which  I  did  not  anticipate. 
Now,  Mr.  Moderator,  the  prosecution  of  this 
case,  I  regret  to  say,  has  not  removed  those 
doubts — has  not  lessened  those  doubts — has 
only  served  to  vindicate  me  in  my  own  eyes 
as  to  the  justice  of  my  former  position  ;  and 
I  am  not  only  ready  to  say  now  that  I  doubt 
as  to  Professor  Swing's  position,  but  I  am 
ready  to  say  that,  with  respect  to  some  of 
the  doctrines  indicated  in  that  paragraph,  I 
do  not  believe  that  he  holds  them. 

Now,  I  want  to  call  your  attention  to  the 
question  that  is  raised  in  the  twenty-third 
specification.  In  the  sermon  entitled  -'Uld 
Testament  In-spiration,"  the  following  pas- 
sage  occurs : 

These  thoughts  bring  mo  itow  to  the 
structure  of  tlie  Psalms  of  David.  Many  of 
them  being  deeply  religidus,  and  suitable  to 
all  religious  hearts,  everywhere,  there  are 
others  that  belonged  only  to  the  days  when 


120 


THE  TKIAL  OF  KEY.  DAVID  SWING. 


they  were  sung.  If  it  was  permitted  the 
Israelites  to  destroy  their  enemies  and  thus 
establish  the  better  their  Monotheism,  it  was 
necessary  that  they  should  sing  battle-songs, 
and  that  much  of  their  hymnology  should 
be  military.  In  the  days  of  an  American 
struggle  with  England  the  song  of  the 
"Star-Spangled  Banner"  might  be  useful 
and  truthful.  It  might  impel  men  along  the 
best  path  of  the  period.  In  France,  a  few 
years  ago,  the  "Marseillaise"  was  rising 
with  power,  for  it  was  .necessary  for  the  peo- 
ple to  check  the  reckless  ambition  of  Louis 
Napoleon.  These  hymns  might  be  confessed 
to  possess  a  temporary  inspiration. 

These  hj-mns— "The  Star-Spangled  Ban- 
ner," and  others — might  be  considered  to 
possess  a  temporary  inspiration  ! 

That  is,  their  good  is  unmistakable.  But 
let  the  world  and  civilization  advance,  let 
war  become  a  crime  and  a  barbarism,  let 
peace  become  not  only  an  article  of  religion 
but  a  policy  of  all  nations,  let  all  disputes  be 
settled  by  arbitration  and  payment  of  dam- 
ages, and  in  that  golden  age  the  war  songs 
of  America  and  France  become  a  poor  dead 
letter, and  no  heart  remain  so  warlike  as  to 
sing  them. 

Thus,  with  such  psalms  as  the  109th. 
They  had  a  temporary  significance,  de- 
pending altogether  upon  the  kind  of  work 
the  Hebrews  had  to  perform.  If  it  was 
necessary  for  them  to  go  to  battle  it  was 
desirable  they  should  have  a  battle-song,  a 
Marseillaise.  If  their  hands  must  do  bloody 
work  they  are  entitled  to  sing  a  terrific 
psalm.  But  the  moment  the  Hebrew  meth- 
od of  life  passed  away,  the  moment  their 
war  for  national  existence  ceased,  that  mo- 
ment the  109th  psalm  lost  its  value.  For  if 
the  bloody  Hebrew  war  is  over,  so  is  its 
battle-song.  There  is  no  logic  in  perpetuat- 
ing a  war-cry  after  the  war  itself  has  passed 
away. 

Now,  "what  do  we  believe  about  inspira- 
tion? There  are  a  great  many  people  who 
tell  you  that  they  believe  in  the  inspiration 
of  the  Bible,  but  they  tell  you,  too,  that  they 
believe  in  the  inspiration  of  John  Milton  ; 
they  tell  you  that  they  believe  in  the  inspira- 
tion of  Dante  and  of  Virgil.  If  that  is  in- 
spiration, then,  a  fig  for  the  inspiration  of  the 
Scripture  I  So  that  when  a  man  tells  you  he 
believes  in  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures, 
he  might  just  as  well  tell  you  he  believes  in 
twenty-four  letters  of  the  alphabet;  it  does 
not  mean  anything  more  to  me,  because  I 
know  very  well  that  one  of  the  greatest  de- 
ceptions of  modern  times  is  just  this  Talley- 
rand system  of  using  language — language 
which  seems  to  carry  with  it  the  sign  manual 
of  Jesus  Christ,  but  which  is  used  in 
the  interests  of  infidelity.  There  is  not 
a    doctrine    in    the     Confession     of    Faith 


which  rationalists  in  Europe  will  not  sub- 
scribe to  if  you  will  let  them  have  their  own 
mode  of  explaining  it  afterwards. 

Now,  then,  the  question  is  not  whether 
Prof.  Swing  believes  in  the  inspiration  of  the 
Scriptures.  I  will  find  a  man  who  will  be- 
lieve in  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures 
wherever  I  can  find  a  man  who 
believes  that  Job  had  a  poetic  nature  or 
Isaiah  and  the  Apostle  John.  But  the  ques- 
tion is  what  does  Prof.  Swing  Tnean  by  the 
inspiration  of  the  Scriptures  ?  He  comes 
here  and  tells  you  in  his  declaration  that  this 
doctrine  of  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures 
is  one  of  those  on  which  he  is  willing  to  meet 
the  skeptical  and  sinful  world.  Why,  I  wish 
to  know  if  there  is  a  Unitarian  here,  or  a 
Universalist  here,  or  a  man  who  appreciates 
the  poetry  of  Shakspeare  here,  who  would 
not  say  the  same  thing  ?  Now,  he  said  he 
used  the  word  in  its  evangelical  sense — and  I 
still  am  as  much  in  a  fog  as  ever;  for  whit 
does  he  mean  by  evangelical  ?  How  mu«h 
easier  and  simpler  it  would  have  been  tor 
him  to  say  :  I  believe  the  doctrines  of  ;he 
Confession  of  Faith  as  to  the  inspiratior  of 
the  Scriptures,  as  to  the  divinity  of  Chria,  as 
to  the  Trinity,  as  to  justification  by  faith  and 
as  to  future  punishment,  and  I  believe  ^hem 
ex  animo  ?     Has  he  done  that  ? 

Now,  in  the  absence  of  any  interpretition, 
or  any  explicit  avowal  on  his  part  as  t"  what 
he  means  by  the  inspiration  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, will  you  think  it  unjust  if  I  uidertake 
to  impose  upon  his  language  a  meaning, 
finding  the  material  for  doing  .so  ii  his  own 
published  words  ? 

During  all  the  discussion  which,  had  with 
Prof.  Swing  in  the  Interior,  I  tied  to  get 
from  him  an  expression  of  opinici  as  to  what 
inspiration  is.  Again  and  asiin  I  asked 
what  he  meant  by  inspiratio.  I  asked 
whether  he  did  believe  that  Od  did  write 
the  Bible — that  the  Scripturesire  inspired  in 
such  a  sense  that  God  did  by  -is  Holy  Spirit 
teach  the  writers  of  the  Newf  estament,  and 
of  the  Old,  and  that  he  stooc^n  such  relation 
to  the  Bible  that  holy  merof  old  spake  as 
they  were  moved  by  the  Hly  Ghost,  so  that 
what  God  says  Peter  says  and  what  Peter 
says  God  says.  Tfiat  is  wl-t  the  Presbyterian 
Church  believes.  That'  what  evangelical 
Christendom  believes.  In  the  vindication 
of  God's  truth,  in  th  question  respecting 
the  plenary  inspiratic  and  the  infallible 
authority  of  God's  W'd,  as  it  is  declared  in 


PKOF.  PATTON'S  ARGUMENT. 


121 


the  Old  and  in  the  New  Testament,  I  ap- 
peal not  to  the  sympathies  and  support  of  tlie 
Presbyterian  Church  alone,  but  to  the  sym- 
pathies and  the  support  of  evangelical 
Christendom. 

Now,  what  does  Professor  Swing  mean  by 
inspiration  ?  What  does  he  mean  when  he 
says  that  the  Scriptures  are  given  by  inspi- 
ration of  God  ?  Does  he  believe  that  the 
One  Hundred  and  Ninth  Psalm  was  written 
by  the  Holy  Ghost  in  such  a  sense  as  that 
what  David  said  the  third  person  of  the  bles- 
sed and  adorable  Trinity  said?  Does  he  be- 
lieve that  the  sentiments  expressed  by  David 
I  in  the  One  Hundred  and  Ninth  Psalm 
|were  sentiments  put  into  his  mind  by  the 
\Holy  Ghost,  so  that  you  may  be  at  liberty 
ipot  only  to  say,  David  said  this,  but  with 
^ual  propriety  to  saythat  the  i/b^j/GAos^  said 
S9  ?  Does  he  believe  that  ?  Then  if  he  does 
believe  it,  it  is  a  very  singular  thing  that  he 
should  speak  of  it  as  having  a  "  temporary 
sigiiificance;"  that  he  should  compare  it 
wimthe  Star  Spangled  Banner,  and  say  that 
it  hid  a  "  temporary  inspiration,"  and  lost 
its  v^lue  when  the  wars  of  the  Jews  were 
over.\  It  is  a  very  singular  thing,  if  that  is 
the  trith,  that  this  Psalm  found  its  place  in 
the  inmired  liturgy  of  God's  church,  and 
has  coiBe  down  to  us  without  any  word  from 
the  Lorn  Jesus  Christ  by  way  of  protest 
against  \ts  continued  use,  or  against  its 
further  Wue  to  us.  It  is  a  very  sing- 
ular think  if  Professor  Swing  has  put  a 
right  inter\retation  upon  the  One  Hundred 
and  NinthVpsalm,  that  the  inspired  author 
of  the  Acts\f  the  Apostles  should  refer  to 
this  very  Balm  as  being  a  prophecy  of 
the  betrayingWt  of  Judas  and  should  say  in 
words  like  the^:  (Acts  i,  xvi — xx.) 

Men  and  bftthren,  this  Scripture  must 
needs  be  fulfiUel  which  the  Holy  Ghost  by 
the  mouth  of  Dttrid  spake  before,  concerning 
Judas,  which  wa\  guide  to  them  that  took 
Jesus.  Per  he  wfc  numbered  with  us,  and 
had  obtained  par\  of  this  ministry.  Now 
this  man  purchaseo,  a  field  with  the  reward 
of  iniquity ;  and  faking  headlong  he  burst 
asunder  in  the  miitt,  and  all  his  bowels 
gushed  out.  And  itVas  known  unto  all  the 
dwellers  at  Jerusalenj  insomuch  as  that 
field  is  called  in  their  Woper  tongue,  Acal- 
dama,  that  is  to  say  thafield  of  blood.  For 
it  is  written  in  the  booiof  Psalms,  Let  his 
habitation  be  desolate,  aVl  let  no  man  dwell 
therein;  and  his  bishopr^  let  another  take. 

If  God  Almighty,  spei\ing  through  the 
writer  of  the  Acts  of  theVpostles,  saw  fit 
to  use  the  imprecatory  PsaVis  jn  reference 


to  Judas,  I  think  it  is  not  modest  for  us,  the 
humble  followers  of  Jesus  Christ,  to  under- 
take to  say  how  much  value  the  One  Hun- 
dred and  Ninth  Psalm  has.  And  that  Pro- 
fessor Swing  does  not  believe  that  the  One 
Hundred  and  Ninth  Psalm  is  the  inspired 
word  of  God  is  perfectly  plain  to  any  one 
who  is  unprejudiced  and  unbiased, — and  by 
this  I  mean  to  impute  nothing  to  anyone, 
but  will  read  what  he  says  in  the  Interior  for 
September  18,  1873.  These  are  his  words: 
The  prominence  given  to  the  One  Hundred 
and  Ninth  Psalm  in  my  remarks,  arises  only 
from  the  fact  tliat  it  has  long  been  a  public 
test  of  the  value  of  any  given  theory  of  in- 
spiration. 

Now,  what  does  that  mean?  What  can  it 
mean?  Why,  it  just  means  this,  and  it  can- 
not mean  anything  else.  "You  believe  in 
the  plenary  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  do 
you  ?  Do  you  believe  the  One  Hundred  and 
Ninth  iPsalm  is  inspired  ?"  "  That's  a  puz- 
zle." "Answer  that  question."  "  It  has  long 
been  the  test  of  the  value  of  any  given  theory  of 
inspiration  J'  Did  it  ever  bother  you,  brethren? 
If  you  believe  in  the  plenary  inspiration  of  the 
Scriptures,  can  you  not  take  God's  authority 
even  tor  the  One  Hundred  and  Ninth  Psalm? 
Is  your  faith  in  God  so  weak  that  because  the 
One  Hundred  and  Ninth  P.salm  contains  some 
imprecations,  which  we  know  referred  to 
Judas — and  he  deserved  them  all — we  cannot 
take  His  authority  ? 

Now  let  me  read  on  : 

That  is  one  of  the  places  at  which  the  ra- 
tional world  asks  us  to  pause  and  apply  our 
abundant  and  boastful  words. 

Now,  what  boastful  words?  There  is 
nothing  boastful,  certainly,  in  saying  "  Be- 
cause God  says  a  thing  is  so  it  is  so."  God 
says  "(iW  scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of 
God."  Now,  I  think  it  is  humility  to  say  a 
thing  is  so  because  God  says  so.  That  is 
enough  for  me.  We  say,  inasmuch  as  Jesus 
Christ  gave  His  authority  and  sanction  to  the 
Old  Testament  in  words  which  distinctly  af- 
firm that  not  a  jot  or  tittle  can  pass  away ;  that 
havinc  satisfied  ourselves  of  the  authority  of 
Jesus  Christ,  the  authority  of  Jesus  Christ 
covers  everything  to  which  He  attaches  His 
sio'nature.  There  is  nothing  boastful  in  that. 
We  say  that  inasmuch  as  the  Apostle  Paul 
bases  his  reasoning  upon  minute  portions  of 
the  Bible,  and  the  Apostle  Paul  being  an 
ambassador  of  Christ,  and  a  chosen  vessel  to 
the  Gentiles,  knew  what  he  was  about,  and 
knowing  what  he  was  about, 'could  not  have 


THE  TEIAL  OF  KEY.  DAVID  SWING. 


122 

based  any  such  argument  upon  any  such  por- 
tion of  the  Scriptures  unless  the  whole  of 
the  Scriptures  were  infallible  ;  or  else  the 
people  might  turn  around  and  say,  Paul,  how 
do  you  know  that  that  part  you  are  quoting 
from  is  inspired?  But  Paul  says,  all  Scrip- 
ture is  given  by  inspiration  of  God,  and 
profitable  for  doctrine,  reproof,  etc.  He  an- 
ticipates the  question  by  saying  that  as 
everything  is  inspired,  this  particular  part  is 
of  course  inspired.  That  is  not  boastful ; 
that  is  simply  taking  God,  Jesus  Christ  God 
manifest  in  the  flesh,  and  the  Apostle  Paul, 
God's  inspired  servant,  as  authority  on  these 
questions.  These  are  not  boastful  words. 
But  does  Professor  Swing  believe  that  the 
Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament 
are  inspired  in  such  a  sense  that  they  are  in- 
fallible— in  such  a  sense  that  when  you  take 
up  the  Twenty-third  Psalm,  you  can 
say  that  is  God's  Word — in  such  a  sense 
that  when  you  take  up  the  Book  and 
open  it  at  any  point,  you  can  say  that  is 
God's  Word — not  because  you  can  verify  it 
in  your  experience,  nor  because  there  is  any- 
thing in  it  intrinsically  which  would  suggest 
to  your  mind  that  it  is  not  a  human  pro- 
duction; but  because  you  have  settled  the 
antecedent  question  that  all  Scripture  is  given 
by  inspiration  of  God.  Does  he  believe 
that?  Does  he?  If  he  does  believe  it — if 
that  is  his  creed,  then  sir,  of  all  the  curiosi- 
ties of  literature  in  the  history  of  this  world 
there  never  was  a  greater  one  for  inconsis- 
tency than  this  which  I  am  going  to  read  : 

That  is  one  of  the  places  at  which  the  ra- 
tional world  asks  us  to  pause  and  apply  our 
abundant  and  boastful  words. 

Tou  know  who  Proude  is.  He  is  not  a 
Presbyterian,  and  he  is  not  a  Calvinist,,  and 
he  is  not  an  evangelical  Christian  ;  he  is  a 
rationalist.  His  creed  is  reduced  to  such 
small  dimensions  that  it  would  not  take  long 
to  count  its  articles,  and  a  very  small  book 
would  make  his  Confession  of  Paith.  Now, 
he  quotes  Froude  with  evident  approval ;  he 
has  not  a  word  of  protest  to  say  against  him, 
and  allows  this  to  go  out  over  his  own  name 
in  a  religious  newspaper,  which  goes  to 
twelve  or  thirteen  thousand  families — he  be- 
ing in  a  high  position  in  the  Presbyterian 
church.  Now,  what  I  ask  you  is,  what 
would  be  the  inference  drawn  by  these  thir- 
teen or  fourteen  thousand  readers  to  which 
this  article  went  ?  Would  they  gather  from 
it  that  Professor  Swing  believes  in  the  inspi- 


ration of  the  Scriptures,  as  that  inspiration 
has  been  defined  in  our  Standards,  and  as  it 
has  been  still  further  and  more  recently  rat- 
ified by  your  Presbytery.  What  does  he 
say? 

Most  of  the  young  men,  even  in  the  Pres- 
byterian Church,  know  what  the  historian 
Froude  said  of  this  psalm  a  few  years 
since.  "Those  who  accept  the  109th  psalm  as 
the  word  of  God,  are  already  far  on  their 
way  toward  auto-da-fes  and  massacj'es  of  St. 
Bartholomew^^'  and  while  they  may  for  a 
time,  reject  these  words,  they  will  soon  de- 
mand a  theory  of  inspiration  very  difi"erent 
from   the  indefinite  admiration  of  the  past. 

And  this  Presbytery  is  called  upon  to  de- 
cide whether  such  a  statement  as  that  can  be 
regarded  in  a  light  favorable  to  his  belief  in 
the  plenary  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures  I 

Why,  sir,  if  this  thing  shall  go  into  histo- 
ry— if  this  thing  shall  become  known — that 
we  are  actually  standing  in  doubt  as  to  Prof. 
Swing's  position  upon  the  109th  psalm,  ve 
shall  have  to  get  some  new  canons  of  evi- 
dence, certainly,  or  at  all  events,  if  we  do 
not  we  shall  have  to  get  the  intelligence  of 
the  nations  to  legislate  upon  the  question  of 
construction,  for  if  that  does  not  mean,  and 
is  not  calculated  to  mean,  that  Prof.  Swing 
endorses  the  sentiment  which  he  here  quotes, 
it  does  not  mean  anything  ;  and  I  wH  give 
up  reading  English,  and  pronounce  nyself  a 
fool. 

Now,  Mr.  Moderator,  you  can  put  this 
down  as  a  settled  fact,  that  as  loig  as  these 
words  stand  unretracted  in  history  they 
stamp  Prof.  Swing  as  denying  ^he  plenary 
inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  aid  it  would 
be  one  of  the  greatest  acts  of  hconsistency 
ever  perpetrated — with  all  respct,  Mr.  Mod- 
erator, to  this  Presbytery — it  would  be  one 
of  the  greatest  acts  of  incmsistency  ever 
known,  if  this  Presbytery,  ater  having  pro- 
nounced its  verdict  upon  pleiary  inspiration, 
and  after  having  accepted  the  report  of  its 
committee  in  reference  to-i  sermon  preached 
by  Dr.  McKaig,  and  afteriiaving  taken  sum- 
mary action  in  referent  to  the  matter — 're- 
manding him  to  his  Prsbytery  as  a  suitable 
subject  of  discipline,  'A^  recommending  his 
congregation  to  dism5s  him ;  if,  after  doing 
that  they  should  deci'©  to  acquit  Prof.  Swing. 
The  inspiration  of  tie  Scriptures  is  valuable 
as  a  doctrine  becauJ  it  guarantees  the  infal- 
libility of  the  Sciptures.  Now,  if  a  man 
should  profess  to  believe  in  the  inspiration 
of  the  Scripture  and  deny  that  which  gives 
value  to  the   i-spiration  of  the  Scriptures, 


PROF.  PATTON'S  ARGUMENT. 


123 


why,  then,  I  do  not  think  that  he  would  mend 
matters  much.  The  reason  why  I  want  to  be- 
lieve in  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures  is 
this  :  Not  for  the  mere  sake  of  the  literary 
information  that  those  scriptures  wore  writ- 
ten by  God — but  simply  because,  having 
cut  loose  from  the  Church  of  Rome,  and 
having  no  possible  authority  to  which  I  can 
appeal  on  matters  of  faith,  and  having  no 
confidence  in  any  subjective  standard  of 
truth  and  righteousness,  and  feeling  that 
this  world  is  too  serious  a  thing  for  me  to 
go  through  it  without  having  something  to 
which  I  can  appeal,  and  that  with  the  issues  of 
life  and  death  before  me,  it  is  impossible  for 
me  to  go  through  this  world  without  having 
something  which  gives  me  reliable  informa- 
tion respecting  the  world  to  come,  I  wish 
to  know  whether  this  book  which  I  cling  to, 
having  cut  adrift  from  Rome — cling  to  the 
more  tenaciously — is  not  only  the  sufficient 
but  is  the  only  rule  of  faith  and  practice.  I 
wish  to  know  whether  it  carries  with  it  the 
signature  of  God  Almighty,  and  whether, 
when  I  anchor  myself  to  it,  it  will  hold ; 
whether,  when  I  rest  my  hope  of  salvation 
upon  it  my  hopes  are  secure.  This  is 
why  I  wish  to  know  whether  this  Word  is 
the  word  of  God.  Now,  if  a  man  shall  say 
he  believes  in  the  inspiration  of  the  Scrip- 
tures and  shall  still  say  that,  notwithstand- 
ing he  believes  that  these  Scriptures  are  not 
infallible,  then  the  infallibility  of  the  Scrip- 
tures being  denied,  the  inspiration  of  the 
Scriptures  goes  for  naught.  Now,  Professor 
Swing,  I  hold,  denies  the  plenary  inspiration 
of  the  scriptures.  But  even  if  he  should 
retract  this  particular  statement,  and  say 
that  he  was  in  error  when  he  made  it  and 
that  he  now  believes  in  the  plenary  inspira- 
tion of  the  Scriptures,  I  should  not  have 
closed  the  case  even  then  ;  for  it  is  still  true 
that  he  does  not  believe — or  at  least  he  does 
not  seem  to,  to  judge  from  his  writings — in 
the  infallible  authority  of  the  Scriptures. 
That  I  propose  to  show.  In  his  sermon,  on 
"Old  Testament  Inspiration,"  the  following 
passage  occurs  : 

There  is,  it  seems  to  me,  no  other  conceiv- 
able method  of  treating  the  Old  Testament 
than  that  found  in  the  word  eclecticism.  We 
must  seek  out  its  permanent  truths,  follow 
its  central  ideas,  and  love  thorn  the  more  be- 
cause they  are  eliminated  from  the  barbaric 
ages  with  so  much  sorrow  and  bloodshed. 

Mr.  Moderator,  the  question  before  us  is 
not   what  you   think,  or  what  I  think,  or 


what  the  public  thinks  just  now  about  that 
passage.  The  question  is,  what  docs  that 
passage  say  ?  We  have  heard  in  evidence, 
or  if  not  in  evidence,  we  have  heard  the 
statement  of  Dr.  Patterson,  that  he  believes 
this  passage  to  refer  not  to  an  eclecticism  of 
autJiority,  but  to  an  eclecticism  of  use.  Now, 
Prof.  Swing  may  have  made  that  statement 
to  Dr.  Patterson  in  such  terms  that  Dr.  Pat- 
terson cannot  have  a  reasonable  doubt.  He 
is  satisfied.  But  Prof.  Swing  has  not  made 
that  statement  to  us.  He  has  not  made  it  to 
the  World ;  and  with  all  respect  and  defer- 
ence to  Dr.  Patterson,  we  must  submit  that 
in  the  trial  of  a  case  like  this,  we  cannot  ac- 
cept Dr.  Patterson's  opinions  upon  this  ques- 
tion. We  do  not  know  what  that  conver.--a- 
tion  was.  We  do  not  know  what  Dr.  Pat- 
terson said  to  him.  We  do  not  know  how 
he  took  pains  to  elicit  his  opinion.  We  do 
not  know  whether  Dr.  Patterson  made  a 
confession  of  faith  and  Prof.  Swing  said 
"Those  are  my  sentiments,"  or  whether 
Prof.  Swing  made  his  confession  of  faith 
and  Dr.  Patterson  said  "That  is  so;"  and 
the  two  things  are  very  difl'erent. 

Dr.  Patterson. — Mr.  Moderator,  I  beg  to 
interrupt  the  gentleman.  It  doesn't  matter 
to  the  Presbytery  which  was  done.  It  was 
very  clearly  done. 

Prof.  Patton. — I  proceed,  Mr.  Moderator. 
I  say  that  is  not  before  us.  It  is  not  a  mat- 
ter upon  which  you  in  your  judicial  capacity 
can  adjudicate.  The  sentence  stands  in  its 
naked  and  unrelieved  position  in  his  sermon 
that  the  principle  of  eclecticism  is  the  only 
principle  which  we  can  adopt  in  the  inter 
pretation  of  the  Scriptures.  If  it  is  an 
eclecticism  of  use,  then  we  wish  that  state- 
ment made  to  us  in  order  that  the  amend- 
ment may  come  before  the  public  and  be 
spread  as  wide  as  the  error.  But  even  if 
Prof.  Swing  should  make  that  statement  and 
come  to  this  Presbytery  and  tell  us  that  what 
he  meant  by  eclectici.sm  was  an  eclecticism  of 
use,  and  not  an  eclectici^ira  of  truth — even 
then  the  case  is  not  closed  on  the  part  of  the 
prosecution,  because  Prof.  Swing  has  said  a 
great  deal  more  than  that. 

In  the  articlesj  in  the  Interior  he  makes 
statements,  some  of  which  I  shall  quote.  I 
hold  in  my  hand  the  Interior  of  September 
4th,  1873,  and  in  order  to  substantiate  from 
his  own  writings  the  position  that  his  mean- 
ing of  inspiration  is  vague  and  that  the  In- 
spiration of  the  Scriptures  as  a  phrase  does 


124 


THE  TRIAL  OF  REV.  DAVID  SWING. 


not  carry  with  it  by  necessary  implication 
the  plenary  Inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  I 
will  quote  this  passage  : 

After  the  Westminster  Confession  had  utter- 
ed its  conclusion  about  the  Bible  being  an  in- 
fallible rule  of  faith  and  life,  it  remains  for 
each  mind  to  find  as  best  it  can  where  that 
rule  lies  and  whether  the  Divine  Spirit  is 
always  equally  in  all  parts  of  the  Holy 
Book. 

In  the  course  of  the  controversy  with  Prof. 
Swing  it  came  out  that  he  had  some  question 
as  to  the  propriety  of  the  Israelites  slaughter- 
ing the  Canaanites ;  and  that  was  the  more 
surprising  to  me  because  as  I  read  the  Old 
Testament,  the  Israelites  acted  very  advised- 
ly in  the  premises,  and  did  not  go  to  that 
war,  at  any  rate,  at  their  own  charges  ;  and 
when  he  intimated  his  disapproval  of  the 
course  which  those  ancient  people  took,  I 
ventured  to  remonstrate  with  him  to  ihe 
effect  that  the  people  were  perfectly  safe  in 
following  the  general,  since  the  general 
was  the  Lord  God  of  Hosts,  and  if  He  was 
satisfied  with  the  victory  we  need  not  com- 
plain. Now,  it  seems  that  Prof.  Swing  did 
not  accept  my  interpretation  of  those  Old 
Testament  transactions  ;  and  when  he  came 
to  review  the  subject  he  used  language  which 
seemed  to  me  to  mean  that  he  did  condemn 
those  Israelites  ;  and  when  I  said  :  "If  you 
do,  you  must  either  condemn  God  also  or 
else  discredit  the  Bible."  He  declined  to 
avail  himself  of  the  "  corner  that  was  fixed 
up,"  but  said  nevertheless,  "  I  do  believe  the 
Bible  and  condemn  the  Israelites."  Now  I 
will  read : 

A  bloody  human  passion  was  permitted  of 
God  to  stand  upon  the  Book,  because  he 
could  make  this  wrath  of  man  praise  him  in 
the  outcome  of  church  life.  Your  apology 
here,  that  God  was  himself  the  general  of  .the 
armies,  and  had  a  moral  right  to  kill  non- 
combatants,  is  one  which  has  long  filled  a 
large  jilace  in  this  debate;  but  it  must  be 
perfectly  evident  that,  in  your  logic,  God  is 
thus  made  the  general  in  the  law  of  '  eye  for 
eye,"  upon  the  ground  that,  if  he  has  a  right 
to  destroy  an  eye  by  disease,  or  a  foot  by 
palsy.  He  has  a  right  to  command  men  to  put 
out  eyes,  or  cut  off  hands  upon  a  large  scale, 
here  or  there.  It  is  barely  possible  that  my 
discourse  may  have  contained  words  that 
should  not  have  fallen  upon  the  ears  of  a 
Presbyterian  audience:  but  it  contained  no 
words  that  made  God  appear  as  general  in 
battles  that  surpassed  in  cruelty  those  of 
Julius  Ca3sar,  and  no  words  that  bind  those 
battles  up  in  the  world's  infallible  rule  of 
faith  and  practice.  That  spirit  of  warfare 
was  accepted  of  God  from  humanity  because 
He  could  over-rule  a  human   evil  for  a  final 


good,  and  thus  it  became  a  part  of  revelation 
by  tolerance,  and  not  by  way  of  making 
known  to  mankind  grand  truths  which 
could  not  have  been  reached  by  the  light  of 
reason. 

Now,  Mr.  Moderator  and  Brethren  :  If  I 
am  at  liberty  to  construe  language  at  all,  and 
if  language  is  to  be  used  in  its  plain  and  ob- 
vious sense  (and  I  understand  that  is  one  of 
the  canons  of  construction)  then  this  sen- 
tence teaches  that  the  Jews,  although  God 
did  give  them  an  explicit  command  to  go  and 
slaughter  the  Canaanites,  and  although  in  the 
face  of  their  unwillingness  to  go  He  told  them 
He  would  punish  them  if  they  did  not  go, 
Prof.  Swing  objects  to  the  course  which  they 
pursued,  condemns  them  for  their  cruelty  ; 
speaks  of  their  wars  in  disparaging  terms, 
says  that  they  surpassed  in  cruelty  those  of 
Julius  Ciesar,  and  objects  to  their  being 
bound  up  in  the  world's  infallible  rule  of 
faith.  I  say  that  in  the  face  of  these  unre- 
tracted  statements,  two  positions  only  are 
possible — they  are,  that  God  told  the  Jews  to 
do  something  which  He  ought  not  to  have  told 
them  to  do,  or  that  He  did  not  tell  them  to  do 
it  at  all ;  and  that  the  statement  that  He  did 
tell  them  to  do  it,  is  not  true — Moses  to  the 
contrary  notwithstanding.  You  are  bound, 
sir,  by  all  laws  of  rhetoric,  and  of  logic,  and 
of  construction  to  come  to  one  of  these  con- 
clusions ;  you  are  bound  to  believe  that  God 
had  no  right  to  command  the  slaughter  of 
those  Canaanites,  and  that  it  was  cruel  when 
He  commanded  them  to  do  it,  or  that  God 
did  not  command  them  to  do  so,  and  that  the 
Book  which  sayshe  did  command  them  to  do  so 
tells  alie.  An  impeachment  of  God  Almighty, 
or  adenial  of  the  historic  accuracy  of  SCoses,  is 
the  dilemma  in  which  Prof.  Swing  is  placed  ; 
and  although  he  politely  declines  the  corner 
which  has  been  "  fixed  up  "  for  him  as  he 
says,  we  have  not  yet  seen  how  he  gets  out 
of  it. 

Now  it  is  not  only  in  respect  to  the  wars  of 
the  Jews  that  Prof.  Swing  is  in  error,  but 
also  in  respect  to  the  Laws  of  the  Jews.  He 
says  that  the  laws  of  the  Jews  are  unjilst, 
and  that  the  laws  of  the  Jews  have  minister- 
ed to  human  depravity.     I  quote: 

It  was  the  inspired  depravity  of  character 
that  was  to  be  accounted  for,  and  not  the 
wickedness  that  comes  in  defiance  of  revela- 
tion. When  a  young  man  corrupting  a 
female  slave  had  to  pay  a  fine  of  a  sheep,  and 
the  girl  alone  had  to  be  scourged,  I  would 
not  like  to  say  that  his  inspiration  was  one 
thing  and  his  sanctification  another.     "Prof. 


PllOF.  PATTON'S  AKGUMENT. 


125 


Swins:  has  confused  tho  two  ideas  "  "Well,  it 
may  bo  that  whon  h'l  shall  have  "  more  care- 
fully studied  the  subject"  ho  will  see  that 
such  a  law  was  in  some  way  conducive  to 
holiness,  but  up  to  this  date  a  defective  State 
law  would  seem  closely  related  to  a  def'ctive 
moral  character.  In  the  formation  of  hu- 
man character,  I  am  quite  ready  to  confess 
that  the  inspiration  of  Christ,  which  not 
only  makes  no  distinction  between  the 
bond  woman  and  the  free  woman,  bat  which 
does  not  scourge  the  weak  one  and  fine  the 
strong  one, but  plucks  up  the  evil  thoughts  of 
both  alike,  will  far  surpass  the  inspiration  of 
the  Old  Testament  in  shaping  the  heart  for  the 
here  or  the  hereafter  ;  and  if  this  conclusion 
be  true,  then  the  defective  character  of  the 
Jews  was  tho  natural  result,  in  part,  of  a  de- 
fective revelation  or  ins[)iration  of  moral 
principles.  If  David's  personal  character 
bad  been  preceded  by  generations  which  drip- 
ped in  blood,  by  generations  which  punished 
over  thirty  forms  of  offonpos  with  death,  by 
generations  which  slew  women  and  cliildren, 
by  generations  which  punished  impurity  by 
a  fine  of  one  animal  from  a  flock,  and  if, 
reared  in  such  an  atmosphere,  David  sent 
Uriah  to  the  front  and  thus  secured  "Uriah's 
beauteous  wife,"  one  certainly  should  not  at- 
tribute this  immorality  "  to  any  lack  of  reve- 
lation," indeed,  but  rather  to  an  absence  of 
that  quality  of  revelation  found  afterwards 
in  the  morals  of  Jesus. 

And  Professor  Swing  further  says  : 

But  I  must  terminate  this  letter.  It  is  to 
be  hoped  that  more  will  be  said  by  yourself 
and  others  upon  this  immense  topic  of  thought. 
1  shall  be  very  happy  to  continue  my  branch 
of  the  discussion  as  opportunity  may  occur. 
Your  theory  seems  too  defective  and  too  timid 
to  be  considered  as  the  undisputed  theory  of 
the  great  Presbyterian  church.  It  is  defect- 
ive because  it  does  not  explain  the  phenomena 
of  the  Old  Testament ;  defective  because  it 
does  not  inform  this  thoughtful  world  where 
the  intallible  guidance  lies,  whether  in  the 
Mosaic  state  laws,  or  in  the  principles  that 
gravitate  around  Jesus  Christ. 

Now,  I  will  not  comment  upon  that.  Pro- 
fessor Swing  speaks  of  the  laws  of  Moses  as 
cruel  and  unjust.  The  laws  of  Closes  were 
given  to  Moses  by  God,  and  if  they  are  cruel 
and  unjust,  the  responsibility  lies  with  God. 

It  is  not  only  in  respect  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, but  also  in  respect  to  the  New,  that  we 
have  something  to  say  by  way  of  criticism 
of  Professor  Swing's  published  views.  In  an 
article  upon  the  "  Interpretation  of  the  Apoc- 
alypse," published  in  tho  National  Sunday 
School  Teacher  for  July,  1873,  we  read  certain 
passages  like  the  following,  and  I  ask  the 
court  to  listen  to  these  passages  and  to  tell 
me,  or  to  form  their  own  judgment  as  to 
what  the  impression  produced  by  these  sen- 
tences  would  be.     I  do  not   afiSrm  'that  in 


these  passages  the  plenary  inspiration  of  tho 
Scriptures  is  denied.  I  do  not  affirm  that 
Professor  Swing  directly  teaches  that  the 
Apostle  John  was  not  inspired  in  the  sense 
that  the  Presbyterian  church  believes  him  to 
have  been  inspired.     But  what  does  he  say  ? 

The  vision  of  St.  John  sicoms  nothing  else 
than  the  common  Christian  doctrine  glorified 
by  tho  fervent  touch  of  imagination. 

I  will  read  no  further  on  that  subject. 
Then  he  says  again. 

Of  tho  exaltfitif)n  of  a  whole  age,  Dante's 
poem  is  a  perfect  example  An  entire  era 
was  lifted  up  by  his  immense  [lower,  and  was 
all  adorned  as  a  bride,  so  that  the  earthly 
served  only  as  the  resting  place  of  the  golden 
ladder  reaching  to  the  sky. 

In  the  Apocalypse  St.  John  had  gone  be- 
fore the  great  Florentine  ;  and  what  Homer 
had  done  with  Greece,  what  Virgil  liad  done 
with  Italy,  whnt  Dante  afterwards  did  with 
the  Middle  A^o,  John  did  with  the  Christian 
theory  of  life,  and  death,  and  futurity.  Tho 
common  doctrines  of  religion,  as  let  fall  be- 
tween Moses  and  Luke  ;  tho  promises,  the 
hopes  the  calamities,  tho  mysteries,  the  re- 
wards and  punishments  of  the  Christian  sys- 
tem, are,  in  this  powerful  book,  led  up 
higher,  to  be  clothed  with  the  finer  raiment 
and  royal  power  of  poetic  imagery. 

Still  further,  he  says  on  page  248 : 

The  art  that  can  make  the  doctrines  of 
Christianity  rise  up  before  us  in  awful  grand- 
eur, or  supreme  beauty,  that  can  clothe  pun- 
ishment with  mighty  thunder,  and  make 
heaven  unveil  itself  before  us  in  dreamy 
loveliness,  has  inspiration  enough  in  its 
moral  results  to  make  us  willing  to  excuse  it 
from  historical  or  prophetic  accuracy  in  tho 
details  of  the  dream.  The  value  of  the 
Apocalypse  lies  not  in  the  fact  that  a  city 
called  Bab^ion  exists  in  some  district,  and 
will  be  destroyed.  This  would  be  significant 
only  to  those  living  within  such  a  corpora- 
tion or  having  valuable  possessions  in  tho 
place. 

I  will  read  no  farther  from  that  article. 
It  is  accessible  to  members  of  the  court.  I 
will  read  now  a  passage  or  two  from  Prof. 
Swing's  sermon  entitled  '-St.  John,"  and  by 
way  of  showing  what  impression  was  pro- 
duced by  this  sermon,  I  will  say  that  before 
I  saw  it  in  print— only  two  daj-s  after  it  was 
preached — I  received  a  letter  from  a  gentle- 
man who  was  a  transient  visitor  in  tho  city, 
and  who  had  come  from  the  east,  and  who 
had  heard  Prof.  Swing  preach.  He  wrote 
to  me  expressing  his  regret  that  a  man 
should  preach  on  the  subject  of  St.  John  and 
make  the  following  utterances  respecting  the 
Apocalypse.  If  these  impressions  were  pro- 
duced upon  his  mind,  upon  how  many  more 
minds  were  they  produced  ?  and  if  the  im- 


L2C 


THE  TEIAL  OF  KEY.  DAVID  SWING. 


pressions  produced  upon  the  minds  of  men 
by  Ms  preaching  are  such  as  to  shake  their 
confidence  in  the  authority  of  God's  word,  or 
their  faith  in  the  preacher's  belief  in  its  au- 
thority, then,  whether  this  hinguage  could 
be  construed  favorably  or  not,  this  Presby- 
tery ought  to  say  that  that  kind  of  statement 
is  not  the  statement  to  be  made  from  a 
Presbyterian  pulpit.  Let  us  read  ;  page  207: 

I  saw  a  pure  river  of  water  of  lif^',  as  clear 
as  crystal,  proceeding  out  of  the  throne  of 
God  and  the  Lamb.  The  holy  Spirit  can 
inspire  a  poet  as  easily  as  a  historian.  There 
are  no  prophecies  of  literal  events  in  the 
Apocalypse,  any  more  than  there  are  in 
Tasso,  or  in  Tennyson,  or  in  Whittier.  There 
is,  though,  a  poetic  soul  educated  in  the 
Greek  school,  that  school  which  gave  man- 
kind the  most  intense  poetry  and  the  deepest 
thought ;  such  a  soul,  seen  in  every  verse  of 
the  Apocalypse,  .--miting  the  facts  of  Christi- 
anity and  making  them  send  forth  music 
like  a  lyre  swept  by  a  skillful  hand.  What 
Dante  was  to  Italy  John  was  to  Christianity, 
only  in  John  the  diA'ine  assisted  the  hu- 
man. When  Paul  has  said,  "We  shall  all  ap- 
pear before  the  judgment  seat  of  Christ,"  he 
has  stated  a  cardinal  truth  of  Christianity  ; 
but  when  this  idea  passed  from  logical  Paul 
to  the  mystical  John,  it  becomes  clothed 
with  its  richest  drapery,  and  amid  the  break- 
ing seals  and  sounding  trumpets  and  rolling 
thunders,  a  vast  multitude  pours  along  to- 
ward the  Great  Judge,  and  beg  the  over- 
hanging rocks  and  mountains  to  cover  them 
from  His  wrath. 

The  difference  between  the  Gospel  of 
Matthew  and  the  Apocalj'pse  of  John  is  the 
difference  between  a  history  and  a  gallery  of 
art — the  difference  between  a  simple  sound 
and  a  symphone.  Paul  said  the  Gospel  was 
to  be  carried  to  every  nation,  just  as  lan- 
guage and  all  truth  are  carried  ;  but  in  the 
brain  of  John  this  idea  became  external,  and 
■was  seen  as  an  angel  flying  over  the  earth, 
saying  with  a  loud  voice,  "Fear  God  and 
give  glory  to  Him."  For  us  to  inquire  the 
the  meaning  of  the  seven  seals,  and  to, in- 
quire whether  Rome  be  not  the  "Babylon," 
would  be  for  us  to  seek  the  "Deserted  Vil- 
lage" of  Goldsmith  or  the  "Beulah  Land" 
of  John  Bunyan. 

Now,  I  will  read  a  passage  or  two  from  a 
writer  who  cannot  be  accused  of  being  very 
partial  to  Hhe  theory  of  plenary  inspiration 
as  it  is  called,  which  we  regard  as  the  true 
one,  and  to  which  our  church  in  general, 
and  this  Presbytery  in  particular,  are  com- 
mitted ;  but  because  Dean  Alford  was  a 
broad-church  man,  and  was  not  a  sound 
man  on  the  subject  of  inspiration,  we  must 
regard  his  testimony  in  respect  to  the  inter- 
pretation of  the  Apocalypse  as  more  worthy 
of  our  attention  ;  for  if  he  can  condemn  as 
improper  that  style  of  interpretation  which 


Prof.  Swing  has  imposed  upon  the  Apoca- 
lypse, a  fortiori,  will  this  Presbytery  refuse 
to  give  it  the  sanction  of  its  approval  ?  In 
the  prolegomena  of  his  great  commentary, 
page  241  of  volume  4,  he  says  : 

And  in  the  fir-st  place;  we  are  met  by  an 
inquiry  which  it  may  be  strange  enough  that 
we  have  to  make  in  this  day,  but  which  nev- 
ertheless must  be  made.  Is  the  book,  it  is 
a^ked,  strictly  speaking,  a  revelation  at  all? 
Is  its  so-called  prophecy  anything  more  than 
the  ardent  and  imaginative  poesy  of  a  rapt 
spirit,  built  upon  the  then  present  trials  and 
hopes  of  himself  and  his  contemporaries  ?  Is 
not  its  future  bounded  by  the  age  and  cir- 
cumstances then  existing?  And  are  not  all 
those  mistaken,  who  attempted  to  deduce 
from  it  indications  respecting  our  own  or 
any  subsequent  age  of  the  Church  ? 

Two  systems  of  understanding  and  inter- 
preting the  book  have  been  raised  on  the  basis 
of  a  view  represented  by  the  foregoing  ques- 
tions. The  former  of  them,  that  of  Grotius, 
Ewald,  Eichhorn,  and  others,  proceeds  con- 
sistently enough  in  denying  all  prophecy, 
and  explaining  figuratively,  with  regard  to 
the  then  present  expectations,  right  or 
wrong,  all  the  things  contained  in  the  book. 
The  latter,  that  of  Lucke,  DeWette,  Bleek, 
Dusterdieck,  and  others,  while  it  professes  to 
recognize  a  certain  kind  of  inspiration  in  the 
writer,  yet  believes  his  view  to  have  been 
entirely  bounded  by  his  own  subjecting  and 
circumstances,  denying  that  the  book  con- 
tains anything  specially  revealed  to  John 
and  by  him  declared  to  us  ;  in  regarding  its 
whole  contents  as  only  instructive,  in  so  far 
as  they  represent  to  us  the  inspiration  of  a 
fervid  and  inspired  man,  full  of  the  Spirit  of 
God,  and  his  insight  into  forms  of  conflict 
and  evil  which  are  ever  recurring  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  wo'-ld  and  the  church. 

I  own  it  seems  to  me  that  we  cannot  in 
consistency  or  in  honesty  accept  this  compro- 
mise. For  let  us  ask  ourselves,  how  does  it 
agree  with  the  phenomena?  It  conveniently 
saves  the  credit  of  the  writer,  and  rescues 
the  book  from  being  an  imposture,  by  con- 
ceding that  he  saw  all  which  ho  said  he  saw ; 
but  at  the  same  time  maintains  that  all  which 
he  saw  was  purely  subjective,  having  no  ex- 
ternal objective  existence ;  and  that  those 
things  which  seemed  to  be  prophecies  of  the 
distant  future,  are  in  fact  no  such  prophecies, 
but  have  and  exhaust  their  significance  with- 
in the  horizon  of  the  writer's  own  experience 
and  hopes. 

But,  then,  if  this  be  so,  I  do  not  see,  after 
all,  how  the  credit  of  the  writer  is  so  entirely 
saved.  He  distinctly  lays  claim  to  be  speak- 
ing of  long  periods  of  time.  To  say  nothing 
of  the  time  involved  in  the  other  vision,  he 
speaks  of  a  thousand  years,  and  of  things 
which  must  happen  at  the  end  of  that  pe- 
riod. So  that  we  nmst  say,  on  the  theory  in 
question,  that  all  his  declarations  of  this 
kind  are  pure  mistakes  :  and  in  exegesis,  our 
view  must  be  entirely  limited  to  the  inquiry, 
not  what  is  for  us  and  for  all  the  meanino-  of 


PROF.  PATTON'S  ARGUMENT. 


127 


this  or  that  prophecy,  but  what  was  the 
writer's  meaning  when  he  set  it  down. 
Whether  subsequentevents  justified  his  guess, 
or  falsified  it,  is  for  us  a  pure  inattcir  of  arch- 
aeological and  psychological  interest  and  no 
more. 

If  this  be  so,  I  submit  that  tlie  book  at 
once  becomes  that  wliich  is  known  as  apocry- 
phal, as  distinguislied  from  canonical;  it  is 
of  no  more  value  to  us  than  the  ISliepherd  of 
Hermas,  or  the  Ascension  of  Isaiah :  and  is 
mere  matter  for  criticism  and  independent 
judgment. 

It  will  be  no  surprise  to  the  readers  of  this 
work  to  be  told  that  we  are  not  prepared 
thus  to  deal  with  a  book  which  we  accept  as 
canonical,  and  have  all  reason  to  believe  to 
have  been  written  by  an  Apostle.  While 
we  are  no  believers  in  what  Las  been  (we 
cannot  help  thinking  foolishly)  called  verbal 
inspiration,  we  are  not  prepared  to  set  aside 
the  whole  substance  of  the  testimony  of  the 
writer  of  a  book  which  we  accept  as  canoni- 
cal, nor  to  deny  that  visions,  wtiich  he  pur- 
ports to  have  received  from  God  to  show  to 
the  church  things  which  must  shortly  come 
to  pass,  were  so  received  by  him  and  for  such 
a  purpose. 

Maintaining  this  ground,  and  taking  into 
account  the  tune  of  ihe  book  itself,  and  the 
periods  embraced  in  its  prophecies,  we  can- 
not consent  to  believe  the  vision  of  the  writer 
to  have  been  bounded  by  the  horizon  of  his 
own  experience  and  personal  hopes.  We  re- 
ceive the  book  as  being  what  it  professes  to 
be,  a  revelation  from  God,  designed  to  show 
to  his  servants  things  which  must  shortly 
come  to  pass. 

Now  the  only  authority  with  which  I  rise 
to  support  my  assertion  that  Prof.  Swing  has 
denied  the  Word  of  God  is  one  which  will 
not  be  disputed  in  this  court,  to-wit:  The 
Word  of  God  itself.  This  very  book  whose 
position  and  character  and  mode  of  interpre- 
tation are  in  question,  opens  with  the  sen- 
tence :  "  The  Revelation  of  Jesus  Christ, 
which  God  gave  unto  Him  to  show  unto  His 
servants  things  which  must  shortly  come  to 
pass  ;  and  He  sent  and  signified  it  by  His 
angel  unto  his  servant  John."  And  it  closes 
with  this  passage  :  "  And  He  said  unto  me, 
these  things  are  faithful  and  true,  and  the 
Lord  God  of  the  Holy  Prophets  sent  his  angel 
to  show  unto  his  servants  the  things  which 
must  shortly  be  done." 

And,  sir,  the  only  comment  I  have  to 
make  in  respect  to  the  position  assumed  by 
Prof.  Swing,  to  the  effect  that  there  are  no 
prophecies  of  literal  events  in  this  book,  any 
more  than  there  are  in  Tasso  or  in  Tennyson 
or  Whittier,  shall  be  in  the  language  of  the 
book  whose  integrity  is  called  in  question, 
and  whose  authority  is  assailed. 


"  For  I  testify  unto  every  man  thatheareth 
the  words  of  the  prophecy  of  this  book,  if  any 
man  shall  add  unto  these  things,  God  shall 
add  unto  him  the  j)lagues  that  are  written  in 
this  book  ;  and  if  any  man  shall  take  away 
from  the  words  of  the  book  of  this  projjhecy, 
God  shall  take  away  his  part  out  of  the  book 
of  life,  and  out  of  the  holy  city,  and  from 
the  things  which  are  written  in  this  book. 

He  which  testifieth  these  things  saith, 
surely  I  come  quickly.  Amen.  Even  so 
come  Lord  Jesus. 

The  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  be 
with  you  all.     Amen." 

Mr.  Moderator,  I  have  closed  the  discus- 
sion of  this  case,  so  far  as  it  concerns  the  first 
charge.  In  view  of  the  evidence  I  have  ad- 
duced, and  the  arguments  I  have  pressed,  I 
leave  it  in  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery,  and 
ask  them,  dismissing  all  prejudice,  forgetting 
altogether  the  questions  involved  so  far  aa 
they  imply  personal  relations,  leaving  out  of 
their  minds  the  prosecutor  on  the  one  hand, 
and  the  accused  on  the  other,  remembering 
their  high  character  as  judges  in  a  court  of 
Jesus  Christ,  considering  all  the  evidence, 
with  their  idea  of  the  responsibility  that  rests 
upon  the  Presbyterian  ministry,  and  judging 
from  their  own  personal  standard  as  Presby- 
terian ministers,  and  from  their  own  experi- 
ence as  elders  of  the  Presbytery,  what  is  due 
from  one  occupying  the  pastoral  relation  ;  I 
ask  you  if  I  am  not  right  in  afiirming  that 
Prof.  Swing  has  not  been  faithful  in  main- 
taining the  truths  of  the  gospel,  and  has  not 
been  faithful  and  diligent  in  the  exercise  of 
his  duties  as  such  minister. 

I  thank  you,  brethren,  for  the  kindness 
with  which  you  have  listened  to  me  through- 
out this  wearisome — I  fear,  wearisome  dis- 
cussion. I  thank  you,  Mr.  Moderator,  for 
the  fairness  and  the  firmness  and  the  patience 
which  you  have  manifested,  not  only  in  the 
argument,  but  more  especially  in  the  pro- 
ceedings of  this  assembly  preliminary  to  tho 
argument.  In  these  respects  which  I  have 
mentioned,  you  have  deserved  not  only  the 
thanks  of  the  prosecutor,  but  I  know  you  will 
receive  the  thanks  of  the  accused.  This 
recognition  of  your  services  comes  with  a 
little  more  grace  perhaps  from  me,  inas- 
much as  perhaps  more  even  than  any 
other  person  on  the  floor,  I  may  have  given 
you  trouble  during  our  deliberative  sessions. 
And,  Mr.  Moderator,  let  me  say  before  I 
pass  to  the  consideration  of  the  second  charge 


128 


THE  TKIAL  OF  KEV.  DAVID  SWING. 


that  if  in  the  rapidity  of  unpremeditated 
speech  I  have  said  anything  which  was  un- 
wise or  unkind  ;  if  I  have  passed  the  bound- 
ary which  a  Christian  gentleman  should  ob- 
serve, and  within  which  he  should  keep,  I 
hope  that  the  Presbytery  will  forgive  me.  I 
do  remember — and  it  is  the  only  instance 
which  occurs  to  me  at  this  time — that  once 
at  least,  since  I  began  this  argument,  I  did 
use  an  expression  for  which  I  shall  now  make 
a  proper  and  a  frank  acknowledgment.  It 
was  with  no  disrespect  to  this  court  that  in 
the  heat  of  debate,  and  led  away  by  the  tide 
of  feeling,  I  did  say  that  this  Presbytery 
ought  not  to  acquit  Prof.  Swing  of  the  charges 
preferred  against  him  ;  and  I  did  say  that  in 
the  event  of  their  acquitting  him  I  would 
impeach  the  Presbytery  at  the  bar  of  the 
higher  court.  Such  a  sentence,  sir,  ought 
not  to  have  escaped  my  lips,  and  I  hope  that 
the  Presbytery  will  accept  my  retraction  of 
it  in  the  spirit  in  which  it  is  made. 

Mr.  Moderator,  the  first  charge  against 
Professor  Swing  was  to  the  effect  that  he 
had  not  been  faithful  in  certain  particulars. 
Whatever  may  be  the  fate  of  the  second 
charge,  and  whatever  may  be  your  judgment 
in  respect  to  the  evidence  by  which  it  has  to 
be  supported,  I  think,  sir,  there  can  be  no 
question  in  the  mind  of  this  Presbytery,  that 
at  least  the  first  charge  has  been  sufficiently 
maintained.  It  is,  however,  a  very  difl'erent 
thing  to  affirm  of  one  that  he  has  not  been 
faithful  in  the  discharge  of  his  duties,  from 
what  it  is  to  affirm  of  him  that  he  does  not 
believe  certain  doctrines ;  but  I  recognize 
the  distinction.  We  propose  to  show  now 
that  this  second  charge  is  true.  We  propose 
to  substantiate  this  charge  by  the  testimony 
of  Mr,  Shufeldt,  and  by  the  testimony  of 
Professor  Swing's  written  sermons ;  and  if 
any  one  shall  say  that  the  accused  party  can 
not  |be  made  to  criminate  himself,  I  shall 
appeal  to  our  friends  of  the  legal  profession 
to  sustain  me  in  this  position,  that,  while  the 
declaration  of  an  accused  person  cannot  sub- 
stantiate his  innocence,  the  admission  of  the 
accused  is  sufficient  evidence  to  substantiate 
his  guilt.  The  testimony,  therefore,  upon 
which  I  rely,  is  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Shufeldt, 
and  the  admission  of  Professor  Swing,  as  that 
admission  comes  to  us  in  the  way  of  his  own 
declaration,  and  as  it  presents  itself  to  us  in 
the  light  of  the  direct  teachings  of  his  ser- 
mons ;  for  the  court  will  see  that  in  making 
this  charge  we  rely  not  only  upon  Mr.  Shu- 


feldt, and  upon  Mr.  Collier,  but  also  upon  all 
the  specifications  of  the  first  charge. 

Now,  Professor  Swing  has  admitted  on 
the  floor  of  this  Presbytery  that  he  does  not 
receive  and  adopt  the  Confession  of  Faith  as 
containing  the  system  of  doctrine  taught  in 
the  Word  of  God.  I  do  not  mean  to  say 
that  he  has  stated  that  in  so  many  words ; 
I  do  say  that  his  plea — his  declaration — can- 
not be  construed  in  any  other  light,  than, 
that  he  does  not  regard  himself  as  holding 
the  doctrine  of  the  Confession  of  Faith,  or  as 
bound  to  hold  them  as  a  Presbyterian  nainis- 
ter.     He  says : 

"A  distinction  exists  between  Presbyte- 
rianism  as  formulated  in  past  times,  and 
Presbyterianism  actual." 

Now,  if  there  is  such  a  distinction,  which 
this  court  can  recognize,  I,  sir,  was  never 
informed  of  it  until  I  heard  it  from  the  lips 
of  Professor  Swing.  If  we  are  not  to  be 
held  to  the  formulated  faith  of  the  Presbyte- 
rian church,  then  I  wish  to  know  what  is  the 
basis  of  the  Presbyterian  Church?  If  we  do 
not  take  the  Confession  of  Faith  as  express- 
ing our  doctrine,  then  what  do  we  take  ?  He 
speaks  of  the  "  church  actual ;"  what  is  the 
"church  actual  ?  "  Is  it  the  Church  of  Pitts- 
burgh, which  is  "  held  in  the  grasp  of  a  Cal- 
vinistic  Hercules,"  to  use  his  own  expression, 
or  is  it  the  Church  of  Chicago,  which 
has  a  "local  gospel"  which  is  "a  mode 
of  virtue  and  not  a  jumble  of  doctrines," 
and  a  system  of  evangelism  of  sufficient 
breadth  and  circumference  to  take  in  both 
Eobert  Patterson  and  Kobert  Collier  ? 

Why,  sir,  if  you  accept  this,  you  have 
started  on  the  high  road  of  latitudinarian- 
ism,  and  you  can  embrace  every  man  who 
says  he  believes  in  the  historic  Christ,  with- 
out in  any  sense  of  the  word  regarding  him 
as  a  Saviour.  If  you  once  adopt  the  formula 
that  the  church  actual  and  not  the  church 
historical  is.  your  basis  of  doctrine,  then  you 
have  opened  the  doors  for  anybody  and 
everybody,  and  the  specific  reason  for  a  Pres- 
byterian organization  is  numbered  among 
the  things  of  the  past. 

Now,  we  believe  that  there  is  a  position  in 
the  world  for  the  Presbyterian  church;  thatshe 
has  a  function  to  discharge ;  that  her  basis 
is  a  doctrinal  basis  ;  that  that  doctrinal  basis 
is  the  Confession  of  Faith ;  that  the  Confes- 
sion of  Faith  has  been  ratified  and  confirmed 
as  the  Confession  of  Faith  of  the  Presbyte- 
rian church  at  the  reunion  j  and  I  do  not 


PROF.  PATTON'S"  ARGUMENT. 


129 


believe  that  this  Presbytery  will  accept  Pro- 
fessor Swing's  interpretation  of  an  "  actual 
church  "  in  contradistinction  from  a  formu- 
lated church.  Professor  Swine;  has  told  us 
distinctly  that  he  does  not  believe  that  our 
church  holds  to  anything  more  than  tlic 
evangelical  doctrines.  If  that  is  not  what 
he  said,  I  will  repeat  the  words  which  he 
used  and  leave  it  for  you  to  say  whether  I 
have  misconstrued  him.     He  says : 

Hence,  unable  to  revoke  any  dangerous 
idea  by  law,  the  Presbyterian  Church  per- 
mits its  clergy  to  distinguish  ncianl  from  the 
church  historic.  To  the  Presbyterian  Church 
actual  I  have  thus  far  devoted  my  life,  giv- 
ing it  what  I  possess  of  mind  and  heart. 

Now,  if  in  a  sentence  Prof.  Swing  affirms 
the  antithesis  between  the  church  actual  and 
the  church  historical,  and  then  goes  on  to 
say  that  it  is  the  church  actual  to  which  he 
has  given  his  life,  is  it  not  a  fair  implication 
then,  that  it  is  not  to  the  church  historical 
that  his  labors  belong  ?  But  that  is  not  all. 
He  goes  on  to  say  : 

It  has  been  my  good  or  bad  fortune  to 
speak  in  public  and  in  private  to  a  large 
number  of  persons  hostile  to  our  church,  and 
in  nearly  all  cases  I  have  found  their  hostili- 
ty based  upon  the  doctrines  indicated  above, 
and  in  all  ways  I  have  declared  to  them  that 
the  Presbyterian  Church  had  left  behind 
those  doctrines,  [referring  to  some  doctrine 
mentioned  above]  and  that  her  religion  was 
simply  evangelical,  and  not  par  excellence, 
the  religion  of  despair.  In  my  peculiar 
ministry  a  simple  silence  has  not  been  suffi- 
cient. I  have  therefore,  at  many  times,  de- 
clared our  denomination  to  be  simply  a 
church  of  the  common  evangelical  doctrines. 

Now,  if  Prof.  Swing  teaches  anything  in 
those  passages  he  does  affirm  that  what  he 
holds  himself  as  bound  to  believe,  are  the 
common  evangelical  doctrines.  He  comes 
into  this  court,  and  so  far  from  answering 
the  charges  of  not  receiving  the  Confession 
of  Faith,  as  he  declared  he  did  receive  it  in 
sincerity  when  he  took  his  ordination  vows, 
be  comes  into  your  presence,  and  in  the  face 
of  the  fact  that  the  Presbyterian  Church  has 
declared,  with  the  solemnity  of  its  two  Gen- 
eral Assemblies,  at  its  late  reunion,  that  the 
Confession  of  Paith  was  its  basis  of  doctrine, 
he  makes  anew  Confession  of  Faith,  and  says 
that  this  is  the  basis  upon  which  he  will 
stand,  and  that  if  the  Presbyterian  Church 
will  accept  that  as  their  basis  of  doctrine 
she  can  have  his  services,  and  that  if  she 
will  not  accept,  that  he  is  ready  to  cross  the 
boundary  which  separates  him  from  other 
evangelical  churches. 


Now  if  I  have  put  a  wrong  construction 
upon  the  language  of  Prof.  Swing,  it  is  a 
construction  in  which  I  am  supported  by  the 
press  and  by  the  public.  I  do  not  see  any 
other  construction  than  that  ho  does  not  be- 
lieve the  Confession  of  Faith  of  the  Presby- 
terian church,  or  hold  himself  bound  to 
receive  it  in  order  that  he  may  remain  in  the 
ministry  of  the  Presbyterian  church. 

Prof  Swing  has  repudiated  those  doctrines 
which  look  towards  a  dark  fatalism  and  leads 
to  the  belief  that  religion  is  a  despair  Now, 
sir,  there  are  no  doctrines  of  fatalism  in  the 
Presbyterian  church.  But  it  is  not  f  )r  me  at 
this  moment  to  speak  in  protest  against  the 
charge  that  the  Presbyterian  church  holds 
fatalism,  except  to  say  that  when  he  referred 
to  those  doctrines  he  could  have  referred  to 
no  other  doctrines  than  those  which  speak  of 
God's  sovereignty,  predestination,  and  ina- 
bility ;  and  if  he  means  to  say  that  he  has 
left  those  doctrines,  then  he  has  left  a  very 
important  element  of  the  Confession  of  Faith 
behind  him,  and  in  no  other  light  than  that  ho 
has  abandoned  those  doctrines,  can  his  lang- 
uage be  construed.  He  has  said  that  he  has  left 
behind  him  the  doctrine  of  hell,  as  it  is  taught 
in  the  Confession  of  Faith,  with  such  terrible 
plainness.  Now  it  is  not  for  me  at  this  mo- 
ment to  revert  to  the  fact  that  he  has  charg- 
ed upon  the  Presbyterian  church  the  idea 
that  she  has  pandered  to  infidelity,  but  sim- 
ply to  say  that  in  making  that  statement  and 
connecting  with  it  a  slander  upon  the  Pres- 
byterian church,  he  nevertheless,  does  admit 
that  he  does  not  believe  that  doctrine  as  that 
doctrine  is  taught  in  the  Confession  of  Faith, 
and  if  he  does  not  believe  that  doctrine  as 
taught  in  the  Confession  of  Faith,  it  cannot 
be  said  of  him  that  he  receives  the  sj-stem  of 
doctrine  taught  in  the  Confession  of  Faith  ; 
for  that  doctrine  is  part  of  the  system,  and 
by  no  means  an  unimportant  part,  either. 

Now,  sir,  I  pass  from  Prof.  Swing's  ad- 
mission in  the  declaration  to  the  testimony 
of  Mr.  Shufeldt,  in  which  that  gentleman 
refers  to  the  tree  about  whose  branches  there 
was  so  much  discussion,  and  while  there  was 
a  great  effort  to  show  that  the  doctrine  of  in- 
fant damnation  was  oneof  the  five.pointsof  Cal- 
vinism, and  therefore  one  of  the  three  which 
were  repudiated,  it  nevertheless,  remains  in 
evidence  that  Mr.  Shufeldt  did  testify  to  the 
best  of  Mr.  Shufeldt's  knowledge  and  belief 
that  Prof  Swing  did  say  that  either  he  had 
abandoned,  or  that  the  church  had  abandoned 


130 


THE  TRIAL  OF  EEV.  DAVID  SWING. 


— and  if  the  church  had  abandoned,  it  was 
clear  that  he  was  with  her  in  that  abandon- 
ment—  two  at  least  of  the  docrinos  com- 
monly known  as  the  five  points  of  Calvinism  > 
and  Mr.  Shufeldt  spoke  with  a  good  deal  of 
firmness  and  a  good  deal  of  assurance. 

Dr.  Patterson. — Allow  me  to  interrupt  the 
prosecutor,  I  think  his  statement  was  about 
two  of  the  branches   on   the  tree   that   was 

•-marked  "  abandoned." 

-  —Prof.  Patton. — The  amount  of  Mr.  Shu- 
feldt's  testimony  was  that  Prof.  Swing  had 
abandoned  one  or  more  of  the  five  points  of 
Calvinism,  and  whether  it  was  relevant  or 
not,  it  is  not  necessary  to  rest  the  case  upon 
that.  He  did  testify  that  he  had  abandoned 
one  of  those  five  points  of  Calvinism,  and 
the  substance  of  the  issue  is  proved.  It  is 
not  necessary  for  the  prosecution  to  prove 
every  solitary  item  in  the  allegation,  as  I 
can  show  by  citing  the  ordinary  rules  of 
evidence,  and  the  precedents  of  Ecclesiastical 
Courts.  The  substance  of  the  issue  is  proved 
when  we  have  proven  that  to  Mr.  Shufeldt's 
certain  knowledge  Mr.  Swing  had  written  to 
him  that  he  had  abandoned  one  of  the  five 
points  of  Calvinism,  and  so  far  as  he  could 
remember,  that  he  had  abandoned  another. 
But  we  propose  to  show  that  Prof.  Swing 
has  n  it  only  abandoned  the  five  points  of 
Calvinism — these  are  not  the  particular  ques- 
tions which  give  us  the  most  trouble.  We 
wish  it  to  be  distinctly  understood  that  this 
issue  does  not  turn  upon  the  five  points  of 
Calvinism  by  a  good  deal ;  it  is  an  issue  of 
far  more  importance  than  the  five  points  of 
Calvinism,  and  Prof.  Swing's  adherence 
thereto.  Prof.  Swing  has  taught  the  doc- 
trine of  Sabellianism.  We  discussed  that 
yesterday,  and  we  need  not  go  over  it  again. 
He  did  give  it  his  approval,  and  did  ridicule 
the  doctrine  of  the  threeness  of  one  and  the 
oneness  of  three ;  and  if  a  favorable  con- 
struction can  be  put  upon  this  language  in 
that  regard — a  construction  which  would  not 
imply  disbelief  in  the  Trinity — that  is  for  the 
Court  to  say.  We  hold  that  in  teaching 
Sabellianism,  if  he  does  not  believe  what  he 
teaches,  and  the  Presbytery  aflBrms  that  he 
does  not,  then,  in  acquitting  him  of  the 
charge  on  the  ground  of  his  not  believing 
the  doctrine  which  he  has  taught,  the  Pres- 
bytery itself  makes  a  charge  against  him  of 
far  more  gravity  than  that  which  I  have  pre- 
ferred. 

And  what  is  more,  Prof.  Swing  has  denied 


the  doctrine  of  Justification  by  Faith  ;  that 
is  to  say,  he  has  made  use  of  language  which 
is  not  in  keeping  with  that  doctrine  as  it  is 
taught  in  the  Confession  of  Faith.  I  shall 
not  argue  that  point,  because  I  discussed  that 
yesterday.  It  is  taught  in  the  sermon  enti- 
tled "  Faith  ;"  and  it  is  taught  elsewhere.  I 
leave  it  to  the  Presbytery  to  say  whether 
those  sermons  on  a  careful  study  will  not  bear 
me  out  in  the  conclusion  that  he  does  not  be- 
lieve that  Justification  is  an  act  of  God's  free 
grace.  I  say  that  he  not  only  has  taught  con- 
trary to  the  doctrine  of  Justification  by  Faith, 
but  he  has  taught  that  we  are  saved  by  good 
works  ;  and  that  doctrine  is  contrary  to  our 
Confession  of  Faith.  That  doctrine  is  taught 
so  explicitly  and  unqualifiedly  that  we  are 
led  to  the  conclusion  that  he  does  not  believe 
the  doctrines  of  the  Confession  of  Faith,  be- 
cause if  he  did  believe  them  he  could  not 
contradict  them  in  his  published  works  ;  and 
I  have  so  much  respect  for  Prof.  Swing's  in- 
tegrity, I  have  so  high  a  regard  for  his  abili- 
ty, that  I  am  not  willing  to  believe  that, 
holding  these  doctrines,  he  has  nevertheless 
taught  the  contrary. 

And  not  only  so.  He  does  not  believe  in 
the  Inspiration  of  the  Scriptures.  I  have 
assumed,  (and  I  think  I  have  maintained  my 
position,  and  that  it  yet  remains  uncontra- 
dicted) that  Prof.  Swing's  published  utter- 
ances are.not  in  harmony  with  the  doctrine 
of  the  plenary  Inspiration  of  the  Scriptures 
as  that  doctrine  is  held  by  all  the  Eeformed 
Churches,  as  it  is  formulated  in  our  own 
Confession  and  as  it  was  affirmed  in  a  recent 
decision  of  the  Presbytery  of  Chicago.  And 
let  me  now  call  the  attention  of  the  Pres- 
bytery to  the  celebrated  Craighead  case, 
of  which  so  much  has  been  said.  The  case 
of  Mr.  Craighead  was  one  in  which  he  was 
charged  with  "  denying  and  vilifying  the 
real  agency  of  the  spirit  in  regeneration  and 
in  the  production  of  faith  and  sanctification 
in  general."  He  was  acquitted  of  this  charge 
of  heresy,  but  while  acquitted  of  the  charge 
of  heresy,  as  I  have  already  said,  they  never- 
theless pronounced  a  censure  upon  him  for 
the  use  of  language  which  was  injurious  and 
dangerous,  even  although  they  gave  him  the 
benefit  of  a  more  favorable  construction  in 
view  of  his  own  disavowal.  They  did  lay 
down  this  principle  which  I  suppose  must 
govern  you  in  the  decision  of  this  case,  and 
which  will  be  brought  before  the  Presbytery 
in  due  time  I  doubt  not  by  the  defense.    But 


PKOF.  PATTON'S  ARGUMENT. 


181 


to  anticipate  that  I  beg  that  they  will  re- 
member the  circumstances  in  the  case  and 
the  qualifying  clauses  in  the  decision.  It 
says,  and  I  am  quoting  now  from  Baird's 
Digest,  page  053 : 

Here  it  will  be  important  to  remark,  tiiat 
a  man  cannot  fairly  be  convicted  of  heresy, 
for  using  cxjirossions  whicii  may  be  so  inter- 
preted as  to  involve  lieretical  doctrines,  if 
they  may  also  admit  of  a  more  favorable 
construction  ;  because,  no  one  can  tell  in 
what  sense  an  ambiguous  expression  is  used, 
but  the  speaker  or  writer,  and  he  has  a  right 
to  explain  liimself ;  and  in  sucli  cases,  can- 
dor requires,  tiiat  a  court  should  favor  the 
accused,  by  putting  on  his  words  the  more 
favorable,  rather  than  the  less  favorable  con- 
struction. 

Another  principle  is,  that  no  man  can 
rightly  be  convicted  of  lieresj-  by  inference 
or  implication ;  that  is,  we  must  not  charge 
an  accused  person  with  liolding  those  conse- 
quences which  may  legitmatcly  flow  from  his 
assertions. 

Many  men  are  grossly  inconsistent  with 
themselves  ;  and  while  it  is  right,  in  argu- 
ment, to  overthrow  false  opinions,  by  tracing 
them  in  their  connections  and  consequences, 
it  is  not  right  to  charge  any  man  with  an 
opinion  which  he  disavows. 

Now,  sir,  to  that  decision  I  hope  we  shall 
give  respectful  assent,  and  allow  it  to  have 
the  weight  which  it  deserves  to  have  in  the 
adjudication  of  this  case. 

Now,  what  does  it  say  ?  It  says  that  when 
an  ambiguous  expression  is  used  the  speaker 
has  the  right  to  explain  himself,  and  if  a 
more  favorable  construction  can  be  put  upon 
his  language,  he  is  to  have  the  benefit  of  it. 
If,  for  instance,  a  single  sentence  were 
quoted  from  one  of  Prof.  Swing's  sermons, 
as  single  sentences  have  been  quoted  (and 
with  great  propriety,  permit  me  to  say)  from 
Prof.  Swing's  sermons  in  the  prosecution, 
it  would  not  be  fair  for  the  prosecution  on 
the  basis  of  a  single  sentence  to  allege  that 
Prof.  Swing  was  guilty  of  heresy,  if  that 
sentence  were  capable  of  a  construction  in 
harmonj'  with  the  Confession  of  Faith,  and 
if,  after  that  sentence  had  been  brought  to 
his  attention,  he  had  given  it  a  construction 
in  that  more  favorable  sense. 

Then  another  principle  is — a  man  cannot 
be  convinced  of  heresy  on  the  ground  of  in- 
ference ;  and  it  is  a  perfectly  fair  proposition. 
That  is  to  say,  suppose  that  I  should  find 
Prof.  Swing  preaching  that  the  sacrifices  of 
the  Jews  were  "  gift  worship,"  tlicn  I  should 
be  perfectly  safe  in  saj'ing  in  argument,  that 
the  legitimate  and  logical  consequence  of 
that  position  would  be  a  denial  of  the  expia- 


tory  character  of  the  death  of  Christ ;  and 
that  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  was  written 
to  prove  the  analogy  between  those  sacrifices 
and  thosacrifices  of  Christ ;  and  that  as  we  de- 
cide upon  the  one  must  we  conclude  upon  the 
other.  But  our  General  Assembly  says,  a 
"  man  may  be  very  inconsistent  with  him- 
self," and  he  may  liold  that  the  Jewish  sac- 
rifices were  gift  worsliip,  and  that  Christ's 
sacrifice  was  expiatory.  Therefore,  I  would 
not  be  justified  in  bringing  a  charge  of' 
heresy  to  the  eflTect  that  Prof.  Swing 'floe*--. 
not  believe  in  the  expiatory  sacrifice  of 
Christ  on  that  ground  alone ;  although  it 
might  be  proper  for  me  in  argument  to  say 
what  such  a  position  would  logically  lead  to. 
But  we  must  not  carry  this  decision  of  the 
General  Assembly  to  the  extent  of  saying 
that  we  cannot  convict  a  man  of  heresy  until 
he  has  distinctly  and  unequivocally  afiirmed 
that  he  does  not  believe  in  certain  doctrines. 
For  cases  of  heresy  are  not  usually  those  in 
which  a  man  has  said,  I  do  not  believe 
this  doctrine;  but  in  which  he  has  directly 
taught  the  opposite  doctrine.  Now,  when 
Prof.  Swing  does  unequivocally  teach  false 
doctrine — when  he  does  teach  heresy  and 
he  does  preach  heresy — on  the  presump- 
tion that  he  teaches  what  he  believes,  and 
speaks  his  mind  when  he  speaks  in  the  pul- 
pit, we  are  quite  correct  in  saying  that  he 
does  not  believe  these  doctrines  if  he  teaches 
the  contrary  doctrine.  And  that  I  am  right 
in  this  position  and  in  this  construction  of 
the  Craighead  decision  is  proved  by  a  refer- 
ence to  page  703  of  the  Digest,  which  has 
not  yet  been  referred  to  in  any  of  the  notices 
of  the  Craighead  decision.  In  the  case  of 
Albert  Barnes  the  decision  of  the  General 
Assembly  is  given  in  the  following  words: 

Much  less  do  the  Assembly  adopt  as  doc- 
trines consistent  with  our  standards,  and  to 
be  tolerated  in  our  church,  the  errors  alleged 
by  the  prosecutor,  as  contained  in  the  book 
on  the  Romans.  It  was  a  question  of  fact 
whether  the  errors  aliegt'd  are  contained  in 
the  book  ;  and  by  the  laws  of  exposition,  in 
conscientious  exercise  of  their  own  rights 
and  duties,  the  Assembly  have  come  to  the 
conclusion  that  the  book  does  not  teach  the 
errors  charged.  This  judgment  of  the  As- 
sembly is  based  on  this  maxim  of  equity  and 
charity,  adopted  by  the  Assembly  of  1824, 
in  the  case  of  Craighead,  which  is  as  follows: 
"A  man  cannot  be  fairly  convicted  of  heresy 
for  using  expressions  which  may  be  so  inter- 
preted as  to  involve  heretical  doctrines,  if 
they  also  admit  of  a  more  favorable  con- 
struction. It  is  not  right  to  charge  any  man 
with  an  opinion  which  he  disavows." 


132 


THE  TRIAL  OF  REV.  DAVID  SWING. 


Now  the  General  Assembly,  in  the  case  of 
Rev.  Albert  Barnes,  expounded  the  Craig- 
head decision  in  the  following  words — and 
being  a  later  decision,  or  an  exposition  of 
the  Craighead  decision,  it  may  therefore  be 
taken  by  us  as  authority.  What  does  it 
say? 

The  import  of  this  is  that,  when  language 
claimed  to  be  heretical  admits  without  vio- 
lence, of  an  orthodox  exposition,  and  the 
accused  disclaims  the  alleged  error,  and 
claims  as  his  meaning  the  orthodox  inter- 
pretation, he  is  entitled  to  it,  and  it  is  to  be 
regarded  as  the  true  intent  and  import  of  his 
words.  But  in  the  case  of  the  first  edition 
of  the  Notes  on  the  Romans,  the  language 
is  without  violence,  reconcilable  with  an 
interpretation  conformable  to  our  standards  ; 
and  therefore,  all  the  changes  of  phraseology 
which  he  has  subsequently  made,  and  all  his 
disclaimers  before  the  Assembly,  and  all  his 
definite  and  unequivocal  declarations  of  the 
true  intent  and  meaning  of  his  words  in  the 
first  edition,  are  to  be  taken  as  ascertaining 
his  true  meaning,  and  forbid  the  Assembly 
to  condemn  as  teaching  great  and  dangerous 
errors. 

The  same  thing  is  found  in  the  New 
School  Digest,  page  308. 

Now,  the  bearing  of  that  decision  upon 
the  case  in  hand  is  this :  There  are  three 
contingencies  in  the  way  of  acquittal  on  the 
charge  of  heresy  in  the  case  of  Prof.  Swing. 
The  first  is  whether  the  language  alleged  to 
contravene  the  standards  of  the  Presbyteri- 
an Church,  is  capable  of  a  construction  in 
harmony  with  the  standards  of  that  church 
without  violence ;  and  it  will  be  for  the 
Presbytery  to  take  upon  itself  the  responsi- 
bility of  construing  his  language,  and  to  say 
■whether  in  their  judgment  the  language  of 
Prof.  Swing  is  capable  of  construction  in 
harmony  witli  the  standards  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church  without  doing  violence  to  the 
rules  of  interpretation.  And  the  second  is 
•whether  Prof.  Swing  will  avow  the  doctrines 
"which  he  is  alleged  to  impugn.  Will  he  say 
that  he  does  believe  the  doctrine  of  the  Trin- 
ity, as  that  is  taught  in  the  Confession  of 
Faith  ?  Does  he  say  that  he  believes  the 
doctrine  of  inspiration  as  that  has  been 
affirmed  by  the  deliverance  of  this  Presbyte- 
ry, and  as  it  is  taught  in  the  standards 
of  our  church?  Does  he  believe,  and  will 
he  say  he  believes,  these  doctrines ;  and 
•will  he  plant  himself  squarely  upon  the 
standards  of  the  church,  publicly,  to  the 
effect  that  he  does  believe  the  doctrine  of 
justification  by  faith,  as  it  is  taught  in  the 
Confession  of  Faith,  and  that  he  does  believe 


the  doctrine  of  predestination,  as  it  is  taught 
in  the  Confession  of  Faith  ?  If  he  does, 
and  if  the  language  he  has  used  is  capable  of 
construction  in  harmony  with  the  language 
of  the  Confession  of  Faith,  then  two  of  the 
contingencies  will  have  been  met.  But  there 
is  a  third  one.  Does  he  disavow  the  doctrines 
which  he  has  been  alleged  to  hold  ? 

Will  the  language  which  he  has  used  be 
capable  of  a  favorable  construction  without 
violence  ?  Will  he  disavow  the  heretical 
doctrines  imputed  to  him  ?  Will  he  afiirm 
his  belief  in  the  doctrines  which  he  is  alleged 
to  have  impugned' 

These  are  the  conditions  which  are  to  be 
satisfied  before  this  Presbytery  can  acquit 
Prof.  Swing  of  the  second  charge  in  this 
complaint, 

Mr.  Moderator  :  The  issue  in  this  case  is 
one  of  belief  in  the  Confession  of  Faith 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church.  Let  there  go 
before  the  world  this  explicit  avowal  on  the 
part  of  the  prosecution  that  this  is  not  an 
issue  between  the  Old  School  and  New  School 
theology.  If  a  man  holds  that  we  are  de- 
generate by  virtue  of  our  federal  or  our 
natural  relations  to  Adam,  I  shall  not  care  ; 
if  he  says  that  the  decree  of  election  antici- 
pates the  decree  of  redemption  I  shall  not 
raise  an  issue.  The  simple  question  is — 
does  he  hold  these  doctrines  in  any  sense 
compatible  with  an  honest  construction  of 
tlie  Confession  of  Faith  ?  Let  us  say 
while  I  do  believe  that  the  Presbyter- 
ian Church  has  a  mission  in  the  world 
which  is  distinctive,  and  has  a  right  to  her 
existence  on  the  ground  of  the  doctrines 
which  differentiate  her  from  her  sister  de- 
nominations, that,  nevertheless,  the  particu- 
lar issues  at  stake  in  this  controversy  are 
those  which  would  be  maintained  as  much 
by  Methodists  and  Baptists  and  Episcopalians 
and  orthodox  Congregationalists  as  I  do  ex- 
pect them  to  be  maintained  by  the  Pres- 
byterian Church.  They  are  issues  which  go 
to  the  foundation  of  Christianity,  which 
touch  the  question  of  our  rule  of  faith,  which 
refer  to  the  Trinity  and  the  ground  on  which 
we  rest  our  hopes  of  Heaven. 

Let  me  say  further  that  the  case  now  rests 
with  you.  You  have  had  the  evidence  and 
you  have  heard  the  argument.  You  know 
that  it  has  been  proven  in  this  Court  that 
Prof.  Swing  uses  equivocal  language  in  re- 
gard to  vital  doctrines;  that  he  has  neglected 
to  preach  the  great  doctrines  which  underlie 


KEV.  MK.  NOTES'  AKGUMENT. 


188 


our  faith  ;  that  he  has  derided  the  standards 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church  not  only  with 
respect  to  doctrines  which  are  peculiar  to  it 
but  also  with  respect  to  doctrines  which 
underlie  the  whole  scheme  of  Christianity  ; 
that  he  has  made  false  and  dangerous  state- 
ments in  regard  to  one  and  another  of 
the  great  doctrines  of  the  AVord  of  God  ; 
and,  finally,  that  he  has  taught  contrary 
to  the  doctrine  of  Justification  by  Faith, 
and  contrary  to  the  doctrine  of  the  In- 
spiration of  the  Scriptures ;  and  that  in 
presenting  himself  at  the  bar  of  this  Pres- 
bytery in  answer  to  these  charges  preferred 
against  him  he  has  claimed  that  the  doctrines 
called  evangelical  are  the  only  ones  held  by 
the  Presbyterian  Church.  You  know  that 
in  regard  to  some  of  the  doctrines  of  the 
Confession  of  Faith  he  admits  that  he  has 
departed  from  them,  and  in  regard  to  others 
it  has  been  proved  that  he  has  done  so.  All 
this  you  have  before  you,  and  I  leave  with 
you  the  question  whether  or  not  the  charges 
against  Prof.  David  Swing  shall  be  sustained. 
At  this  point  the  Presbytery  took  a  recess 
till  2  o'clock  P.  M. 


The  Presbytery  re-assembled  at  two 
o'clock  P.  M. 

Rev.  Mr.  Noyes  then  entered  upon  his 
argument  for  the  defense. 

ARGUMENT   OF    THE   COUNSEL    FOR    THE 
DEFENDANT. 

Mr,  Moderator,  Fathers,  and  Brethren  of 
the  Presbytery  of  Chicago  :  It  is  only  the 
extreme  desire  I  have  that  this  case  may 
be  submitted  as  early  as  possible  to  your  de- 
cision, that  makes  me  willing  to  appear  before 
you  this  afternoon,  and  enter  upon  the  argu- 
ment in  behalf  of  the  defense.  For,  unfor- 
tunately, I  have  been  suffering  for  the  last 
twelve  hours  with  somewhat  serious  indis- 
position, and  I  fear  that  my  strength  will 
not  hold  out  to  enable  me  to  occupy  the 
"whole  time  appointed  for  this  afternoon  ses- 
sion ;  but  I  will  at  least  begin,  and  proceed  to 
the  furthest  limit  of  my  strength. 

We  are  confronted  to-day  by  that  which, 
if  we  are  not  willfully  blind,  must  appear  to 
us  all  as  a  "  great  and  sore  trouble."  Scarcely 
has  the  honeymoon  passed,  which  followed 
the  happy  marriage  of  the  Old  and  New 
School  branches  of  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
"when  a  new  danger  arises  to  threaten  our 
peace.       The  echoes  of  voices  which  were 


raised  in  joyful  thanksgiving  to  God  over 
that  blessed  union,  have  hardly  died  away, 
when  suddenly  our  hearts  are  pained  and 
filled  with  anxiety  by  the  presence  of  unex- 
pected peril.  Upon  the  married  life  of  these 
churches,  over  all  of  which  a  spirit  of  love 
and  peace  has  been  bre«thed,  dark  clouds 
now  begin  to  arise,  threatening  storm,  and 
wrath,  and  ruin.  It  would  seem  that  whom 
God  has  joined  together,  man,  in  his  folly, 
is  in  danger  of  putting  asunder.  Until 
recently  there  was  peace  within  the  bounds 
of  this  Presbytery.  In  one  branch  of  the 
church  there  had,  unhappily,  been  strife  in 
the  days  that  are  gone.  But  in  the  general 
good  feeling  consequent  upon  the  reunion, 
past  differences  seemed  destined  to  a  speedy 
oblivion,  and  there  was  every  promise  that 
we  should  abundantly  realize,  "  how  good 
and  how  pleasant  a  thing  it  is  for  brethren  to 
dwell  together  in  unity."  But  from  our  deep 
dream  of  peace  we  have  suddenly  been 
awakened.  How  it  came  about  you  all  know, 
and  I  will  not  take  your  time,  upon  which  I 
shall  necessarily  make  large  demands,  to  re- 
count the  story.  I  will,  therefore,  proceed 
at  once  to  the  business  in  hand.  B-efore 
entering,  however,  upon  any  examination  of 
the  argument  which  has  been  made  by  the 
prosecutor  in  this  case,  I  desire  to  ask  your 
attention  for  a  little  time  to  the  form  of  the 
complaint  upon  which  the  defendant  in  thia 
case  is  arraigned  at  your  bar.  "When  this  in- 
dictment was  presented,  the  defendant  was 
somewhat  peculiarly  placed.  If  his  counsel 
had  moved  to  quash  it,  there  would  have 
been  an  instant  outcry  on  the  part  of  the 
prosecutor  and  his  friends,  that  we  were  at- 
tempting to  smother  inquiry  and  to  avoid  a 
fair  investigation.  If  we  made  no  such 
motion,  we  put  ourselves  in  the  position  of 
seeming  to  approve  of  the  indictment  a.^  cor- 
rect, both  in  form  and  substance.  We  did 
not  wish  to  move  to  quash  it,  nor  were  we 
willing  to  be  understood  as  regarding  it 
rightly  drawn.  In  this  state  of  things,  I 
desired  at  the  outset  to  make  an  explanatory 
statement.  But  to  this  objection  was  made, 
and  so  the  case  went  to  trial.  In  both  the 
charges  here  exhibited  and  in  nearly  all  the 
specifications  under  them,  there  are  such  ob- 
vious and  glaring  defects,  either  of  substance 
or  of  form,  that  in  any  purely  equitable  and 
legal,  not  to  say  technical  view,  they  ought 
never  to  have  been  entertained.  They  should 
have  been  turned  incontinently  out  of  court. 


134 


THE  TKIAL  OF  EEV.  DAYID  SWING. 


In  support  of  tbis  statement  it  will  be  neces- 
sary to  consider  (1)  the  nature  of  a  charge,  (2) 
of  a  specification,  and  then  (3)  show  how 
neither  the  charges  of  this  indictment  nor 
the  specifications  by  which  it  is  sought  to 
prove  them,  are  such  as  to  make  a  valid  case 
for  trial. 

In  discussing  these  points,  let  it  first  be 
distinctly  aimittcd  that  the  extreme  nicety 
and  refinement  of  criticism,  with  which  in- 
dictments are  handled  in  civil  courts,  would 
be  quite  out  of  place  in  an  ecclesiastical  tribu- 
nal like  this  :  and  yet  it  will  be  admitted  by 
all  that  there  are  certain  rules  founded  on 
natural  justice,  which  ought  to  be  observed 
and  held  inviolable  by  ecclesiastical  courts. 
Because  an  indictment  here  may  not  proper- 
ly be  handled  in  that  remorseless  way  which 
prevails  in  civil  courts,  it  does  not  follow 
that  it  may  be  drawn  in  such  a  way  as  to 
violate,  in  its  charges  and  specifications,  the 
most  obvious  principles  of  justice.  But  that, 
in  the  case  before  us,  this  has  been  done,  it 
will  not  be  difficult  to  prove. 

The  general  term  charge  may  be  under- 
stood as  applying  to  the  whole  accusation  made 
against  the  accused  person.  This  accusation 
consists  of  two  distinct  parts  :  the  first,  which 
is  specially  called  the  charge,  consists  in 
designating  the  general  ofl'ense  of  which  the 
accused  is  charged  ;  and  the  second,  which  is 
called  the  specification  to  the  charge,  consists 
in  the  alleging  of  certain  specified  acts  done  by 
the  accused,  which  are  supposed  to  constitute 
or  prove  the  general  offense  named  in  the 
charge.  A  charge,  it  is  plain,  ought  to  set 
forth  some  one  general  offense,  which  is  so 
exceptional  in  its  character  as  imperatively 
to  call  for  ecclesiastical  censure.  The  charge 
must  also  clearly  and  distinctly  define  the 
offense,  so  that  the  accused  may  know  pre- 
cisely of  what  he  isaccused.  Yague  charges 
are  objectionable,  and  unfair,  to  the  last  de- 
gree. Applying  now  these  principles  to 
the  charges  in  this  indictment,  what  should 
be  our  judgment  upon  them  ?  It  is  noticeable 
that  they  are  both  negative  in  form.  The 
prosecution  charges  that  the  defendant  has 
not  been  "  faithful  and  zealous  in  maintain- 
ing the  truths  of  the  Gospel,"  and  that  he 
"  does  not  sincerely  receive  and  adopt  the 
Confession  of  Faith." 

The  first  charge  is  indefinite  to  the  extent 
oi  not  naming  at  all  any  punishable  offense. 
Would  the  prosecutor  come  into  this  court 
and  claim  that  he  has  been,  and  is  faithful  as 


a  minister  ?  Such  a  boast,  if  he  were  to 
make  it,  as  I  know  he  would  not,  would  of 
itself  be  a  swift  witness  against  him  for  un- 
faithfulness. You  cannot  run  the  line  be- 
tween the  faithful  and  the  unfaithful.  You 
cannot  find  the  point  where  faithfulness  be- 
gins ;  so  that,  this  side  that  point,  a  man 
may  go  uncensured  of  his  brethren,  and  be- 
yond it  be  justly  exposed  to  their  sentence  of 
condemnation.  All  are  zealous,  faithful,  and 
diligent  in  some  degree,  but  in  some  degree, 
also,  all  come  short. 

Charge  second  is  still  more  objectionable. 
It  arraigns  the  defendant,  not  for  what  he 
teaches,  let  it  be  carefully  observed,  but  for 
what  he  thinks.  It  is  true,  indeed,  that  the 
specifications  might  embody  facts  that  would 
so  reveal  the  state  of  the  respondent's  mind 
as  to  show  that  he  does  not  receive  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith.  They  might  do  this,  but 
they  do  not.  They  contain  only  the  prose- 
cutor's own  inferences  and  conclusions  which 
he  draws  from  Prof.  Swing's  language.  The 
charge  is  founded  upon  the  supposed  state  of 
a  man's  mind,  and  not  upon  any  clear  and 
unquestionably  heretical  utterances  of  his 
lips.  To  judge  the  heart  is  the  prerogative, 
not  of  the  prosecutor  in  this  case,  not  of  the 
members  of  this  court,  but  of  God  alone. 
Let  me  illustrate  what  I  mean,  by  saying 
that  the  specifications  under  these  charges  are 
so  indefinite  as  not  to  sustain  or  make  mani- 
fest what  is  the  offense  to  which  the  respon- 
dent is  to  answer.  The  very  first  specifica- 
tion under  charge  I  begins  with  setting  forth 
what  ?  A  fact  ?  Not  at  all ;  but  simply  the 
conclusion  of  the  prosecutor,  in  this  lan- 
guage :  "  he  is  in  the  habit  of  using  equivocal 
language  " — who  is  to  be  the  judge  of  equi- 
vocal language? — "to  the  manifest  injury 
of  his  reputation  as  a  Christian  Minister,  and 
to  the  injury  of  the  cause  of  Christ."  Speci- 
fication third  reads  : 

He  has  nianifested  a  culpable  disregard  of 
the  essential  doctrines  of  Christianity  by 
giving  the  weight  of  his  influence  to  the 
Unitarian  denomination,  and  by  the  un- 
worthy and  extravagant  laudation  in  the 
pulpit,  and  through  the  press  of  John  Stuart 
Mill,  a  man  who  was  known  not  to  have  be- 
lieved in  the  Christian  religion. 

Is  that  the  setting  forth  of  a  fact — of  an 
act  which  clearly  reveals  and  manifests  to 
this  court  the  guilt  of  the  respondent  ?  On 
the  contrary,  it  is  setting  forth  only  a  con- 
clusion of  the  prosecutor  himself.  So  also, 
of   specification    fourth.     "In  the  sermons 


EEV.  MR.  NOYES'  ARGUMENT. 


135 


aforesaid,  language  is  employed  which  is  de- 
rogatory to  the  standards  of  the  Presbyteri- 
an church."  Again,  an  exhibition  simply 
of  the  prosecutor's  inferences.  Specification 
ninth  declares  :  "He  has  given  his  approval 
in  the  pulpit  to  the  doctrine  commonly 
known  as  Sabellianism."  Whatever  he  may 
have  done,  in  the  judgment  of  Prof.  Patton, 
certainly  there  are  many  who  have  made 
themselves  familiar  with  the  facts  of  this 
trial,  as  they  have  been  developed,  and 
spread  out  before  this  court,  who  do  not  at 
all  agree  with  him  in  the  conclusion  which 
he  sets  forth  here,  that  Prof.  Swing  is  a  Sa- 
bellian,  and  that  he  has  given  his  public  ap- 
proval to  that  doctrine.  I  might  go  on 
through  every  one  of  the  specifications  which 
are  set  forth  under  these  charges,  and  show 
that  they  all,  so  far  as  they  embody  anything 
culpable,  embody  simply  the  judgments  and 
conclusions  of  the  prosecutor  himself,  and 
nothing  more. 

I  come  next  to  speak  of  the  specification. 
And  here,  in  defining  what  the  specification 
is,  and  what  it  should  embrace,  I  shall  have 
occasion  to  state  principles  which  I  am  sure 
will  commend  themselves  to  the  judgment 
and  common  sense  of  every  member  of  this 
body.  The  specification  [see  O'Brien's  Mil- 
itary Law  and  Courts  Martial]  must  always 
charge  the  accused  with  having,  at  such  a 
time  and  such  a  place,  done  certain  acts 
which  amount,  or  which  are  thought  to 
amount,  to  the  oflense  stated  in  the  charge. 
"The  fact,  or  facts,  ought  to  be  very  distinct- 
ly specified  or  alleged,  in  such  a  manner 
that  neither  the  accused  nor  the  court  can 
have  any  difficulty  in  knowing  what  is  the 
precise  object  of  investigation."  Another 
principle  which  should  obtain  in  the  draw- 
ing of  the  specification  under  a  charge,  is 
this :  that  every  fact  in  the  specification 
should  be  such  as,  if  proved,  would  convict 
the  accused  of  the  charge,  or  at  least  might 
convict  him  of  it.  But  does  any  member  of 
this  court  believe  that  one-half  of  these 
specifications  can  be  regarded  as  meeting 
this  obvious  and  reasonable  requirement  ? 
Any  allegation  in  the  specification  which,  if 
proved,  could  not  convict  the  accused  of  any 
degree  of  crime  charged,  is  irrelevant,  and 
should  be  rejected  at  the  outset  of  the  trial. 
A  motion  would  have  been  made  to  that  ef- 
fect but  for  the  reason  which  has  already  been 
stated — in  order  that  we  might  not  seem  in 
any  way  to  be  shrinking  from  or  seeking  to 


avoid,  a  clear  and  most  searching  examina- 
tion into  the  facts  set  forth  or  alleged  in  this 
complaint.  But  then  the  retention  of  such 
irrelevant  matter  in  a  charge  is  surplasage, 
and  no  evidence  should  be,  and  no  evidence 
can  rigiitfully  be,  received  thereon.  But 
then  it  is  always  better  to  reject  such  matter 
at  the  first.  Again,  I  think  it  will  be  agreed 
by  the  members  of  this  court,  that  it  is  a 
highly  improper  thing  that  the  inferences  of 
a  prosecutor  should  ever  be  suffered  to  ap- 
pear in  the  specification ;  and  yet,  if  you 
take  the  prosecutor's  inferences  away  from 
this  complaint,  you  take  the  specifications 
away  with  them  ;  there  is  nothing  else  left. 
The  facts  alone  should  be  stated.  It  is  for 
the  court  to  draw  the  inference  in  each  sepa- 
rate and  individual  case.  These  inferences 
of  the  prosecutor  should  then  be  regarded 
by  the  court  as  mere  surplusage. 

Again,  there  should  be  no  uncertainty  or 
vagueness  in  the  specifications.  And  yet  the 
indictment  before  this  body,  and  on  which 
your  brother  presbyter  has  been  arraigned, 
has  been  framed  in  conspicuous  violation  of 
all  these  principles.  The  members  of  this 
Court  have  been  enveloped  in  a  great  cloud 
of  words,  words  which  state  next  to  nothing 
as  regards  actual  facts,  and  which  insinuate 
next  to  everything  in  the  shape  of  the  prose- 
cutor's inferences ;  and  through  such  a  hazy 
and  distorting  medium  as  this,  they  are 
asked  to  look  at  their  accused  brother  and 
see  if  he  does  not  appear  an  unfaithful  min- 
ister and  a  heretical  teacher.  We  have  in- 
volution and  convolution  illustrated  before 
us  in  this  indictment  to  such  a  bewildering 
extent,  that  this  bod}'  might  well  be  adjudged 
incapable  of  determining  the  degree  of  guilt 
which  should  be  attached  to  him  who  holds 
to  the  doctrine  of  "evolution"  or  religiou.s 
progress  and  growth.  Nor  does  it  help  the 
matter,  nor  at  all  serve  to  lift  us  out  of  this 
haze  of  indcfiniteness  which,  like  a  London 
fog,  envelops  us  all,  that  the  Prosecutor 
comes  and  protests,  in  open  Court,  as  he  did 
at  the  outset  of  this  trial,  that  he  cannot 
make  these  charges  and  specifications  any 
more  definite;  for  this  is  tantamount  to  a 
confession  on  his  part  that  he  has  no  case. 
If  a  man  were  guilty  of  murder,  it  would,  I 
suppose,  be  possible  to  say  so  distinctly.  If 
he  were  guilty  of  falsehood,  the  English  lan- 
guage is  rich  enough  in  resources  to  enable 
one  to  charge  that  also  with  detinitcness,  pre- 
cision and  even  emphasis.     And  if  this  re- 


136 


THE  TRIAL  OF  EEV.  DAVID  SWING. 


spondent  at  your  bar  has  been  guilty  of  any 
well  defined  and  unquestionable  ecclesiastical 
offense,  it  ought  not  to  be  impossible  to  say 
what  offense,  and  the  statement  should  be 
one  of  fact  and  not  of  inference.  But  that 
the  charges  in  this  indictment  do  not  give  us 
any  light  upon  this  point  I  have  already 
shown.  That  the  specifications  leave  us 
equally  in  the  dark  can  be  easily  shown  ;  and 
in  discussing  these  specifications  I  shall  not, 
at  this  point,  undertake  to  follow  the  order 
of  argument  presented  by  the  prosecutor, 
but  shall  simply  ask  your  attention  to  the 
specifications,  or  rather  to  a  few  of  them,  by 
way  of  illustrating  my  objections  to  this  in- 
dictment. 

Beginning  with  the  first  of  the  specifica- 
tions and  assuming  the  charge  to  be  in 
proper  form,  the  object  of  the  specification  is 
to  point  out  wherein  the  defendant  has  failed 
in  zeal  and  faithfulness  and  diligence  as  a 
minister.  The  particular  instances  in  which 
the  lack  of  these  qualities  has  been  mani- 
fested, should  be  exhibited  in  the  specifica- 
tions. "We  look  for  them  there  and  find 
nothing  of  the  kind.  Specification  first,  as 
Dr.  Swazey's  protest  well  declared,  is  no 
specification  at  all.  The  substance  of  it  is 
that  equivocal  language  has  been  used  in  ser- 
mons printed  in  the  Chicago  Pulpit  and  the 
Alliance,  and  the  volume  entitled  "Truths  for 
To-day."  In  these  sermons,  references  to 
cardinal  doctrines  are  declared  to  be  vague, 
and  it  is  charged  that  these  doctrines  have 
not  been  unequivocally  afiirmed.  Now  the 
object  of  a  specification  is  to  tell  a  man  what 
particular  dereliction  he  is  accused  of  that  he 
may  deny  his  guilt  in  regard  to  that  particu- 
lar. This  specification  permits  the  prosecu- 
tor to  seek  his  evidence  in  any  of  the  vol- 
umes of  sermons  alluded  to,  while  it  gives 
the  accused  no  notice  as  to  the  particular  ut- 
terance or  mode  of  speech  which  is  objected 
to. 

Specification  second  is,  that  the  effect  of 
Prof.  Swing's  offense  has  been  to  awaken 
doubts  in  the  minds  of  some  of  his  brethren, 
and  to  cause  Unitarians  to  claim  him.  It  is 
further  asserted  that  Mr.  Swing,  knowing 
that  ho  was  suspected  of  doctrinal  unsound- 
ness, has  not  declared  his  position  by  preach- 
ing sermons  especially  tor  that  purpose,  nor 
in  any  other  way.  This  specification  is  re- 
markable only  for  what  Hamlet  would  call  «'a 
plentiful  lack  "  of  definiteness.  Men  are  often 
indicted,  as  we  all  know,  for  crime,  but  thi 


is  tne  first  instance  that  I  remember  ever  to 
have  heard  of,  where  a  man  has  been  indicted 
for  the  effects  of  a  crime  ?  But  here  the 
accused  is  charged  with  the  consequences  of 
his  pretended  offences,  and  it  is  further 
alleged  that,  knowing  these  consequences,  he 
has  not  reformed.  Now,  if  the  accused  has 
been  guilty  of  an  ecclesiastical  offense,  he 
should  be  charged  specially  with  that,  and 
tried  upon  it,  and  not,  as  is  here  most  un- 
justly done,  be  arraigned  for  the  consequences 
of  a  pretended  ofiense,  and  for  not  reforming 
though  knowing  the  consequences. 

Specification  third,  in  its  first  averment, 
declares  that  the  accused  has  given  the  weight 
of  his  influence  in  favor  of  Unitarianism. 
Now  an  influence  grows  out  of  acts,  and  to 
charge  a  man  with  using  an  influence,  is 
charging  him  with  a  conclusion.  Instead  of 
that,  he  should  be  charged  with  eei-tain  speci- 
fied actsy  and  he  should  be  punished  for  these 
acts,  if  he  is  guilty  of  them,  and  if  they 
constitute  a  disciplinable  offense,  but  not 
otherwise.  He  is  next  said  to  be  guilty  of 
unworthy  and  extravagant  laudation  of  John 
Stuart  Mill.  But  this  is  a  conclusion  which 
the  prosecutor  arrives  at  in  his  own  mind. 
If  the  accused  has  extravagantly  lauded  Mr. 
Mill,  he  did  it  by  the  use  of  certain  words, 
which  ought  to  have  been  quoted  in  the 
specification,  and  on  these  he  ought  to  be 
tried.  3ut  instead  of  this,  the  prosecutor  has 
drawn  his  own  conclusion  from  the  words 
which  he  does  not  quote,  and  then  seeks  to 
prosecute  the  defendant  on  the  conclusion 
which  he  draws.  In  this,  therefore,  the 
specification  is  defective  in  form.  It  sets 
forth  the  conclusion  which  the  prosecu- 
tor draws  from  the  language  of  the  de- 
fendant, but  not  the  language  itself.  It 
is  for  the  Court  to  draw  the  conclusions. 
But  may  not  a  man  speak  words  of  praise  of 
an  atheist  ?  Not  of  his  atheism,  for  with 
doing  this  Prof.  Patton  does  not  go  so  far 
as  to  charge  Prof.  Swing.  "The  unworthy 
and  extravagant  laudations "  of  Mr.  Mill 
had  respect,  as  even  the  prosecutor  himself 
confesses,  only  to  his  great  abilities,  acknowl- 
edged by  all,  and  to  his  fruitful  labors  in  the 
fields  of  philosophy,  of  literature,  and  of 
political,  moral  and  social  reform.  In  all 
these  departments  of  human  effort,  it  cannot 
be  denied  that  Mr.  Mill  was  an  earnest  and 
conscientious  worker.  And  having  been 
such,  is  it  a  sin  to  speak  well  of  him  so  far  as 
these  labors  are  concerned?    To  say  that 


KEV.  MK.  NOYES'  AEGUMENT. 


137 


Mr.  Mill  labored  with  all  his  might  to  tear 
down  and  destroy  the  Christian  religion,  is 
simply  to  say  what  is  notoriously  untrue. 
He  did  nothing  of  the  kind.  It  was  not  till 
his  autobiography  appeared,  almost  at  the 
close  of  his  life,  that  men  knew  what  his 
opinions  were  on  the  subject  of  religion.  He 
had  from  all,  except  from  his  intimate  friends, 
if  not  even  from  these,  kept  his  opinions  con- 
cealed. He  was  not  known  as  an  atheist, 
nor  even  as  an  enemy  of  religion,  except  in 
the  sense  that  he  was  not  known  as  its  friend. 
But  even  if  he  had  been  an  open  and  vindic- 
tive eneniy  of  Christianity,  should  we 
therefore  refuse  to  recognize  his  great  gifts  ? 
Prof.  Swing  may  have  formed  too  favorable 
an  opinion  of  the  man,  and  of  his  general 
work.  His  view  is  one  with  which  the  pro- 
secutor evidently  does  not  coincide,  and  with 
which  members  of  this  court,  very  possibly, 
may  not  coincide.  But  what  then  ?  Is  it 
not  better  to  err  on  the  side  of  charity  than 
on  the  side  of  severity  ?  Prof.  Swing  did 
not  fail  to  see,  nor  did  he  fail  to  point  out 
very  emphatically,  the  defect  in  Mr.  Mill's 
character.  Upon  his  life,  so  abounding  in 
labors  in  behalf  of  philosophy  and  reform,  he 
wrote  the  word  "vanity"  as  his  final  ver- 
dict, in  broad  and  legible  characters,  and 
even  though  you  suppose  that  his  judgment 
of  him  as  a  philosopher,  as  a  political  econo- 
mist, and  as  a  reformer,  be  a  too  favorable 
one,  are  you  going  to  regard  this  as  an 
ecclesiastical  misdemeanor  which  requires  a 
formal  censure?  1  have  not  so  poor  an 
opinion  of  this  court  as  to  believe  that  they 
will  for  one  moment  entertain  such  a 
thought.  No,  sir.  Prof.  Patton  is  wrong. 
He  is  wrong  in  thinking  that  the  religion  of 
Christ  is  to  be  commended  and  advanced  by 
treating  every  unbeliever  in  it  as  a  heathen 
man  and  a  publican.  He  is  wrong  in  him- 
self insisting  upon  the  principle  of  refusing 
to  commend  what  is  commendable  in  another, 
simply  because  he  is  not  all  that  we  know  he 
should  be.  Not  so  did  the  Saviour,  for  He 
commended  one,  almost  warmly,  for  the  good 
qualities  which  he  possessed  ;  but  He  did  not 
omit  to  say,  "One  thing  thou  lackest." 
Lacking  that,  he  lacked  all  things.  It  is  not 
in  any  important  respect  diflerent  from  this, 
that  Prof.  Swing  has  spoken  of  John  Stuart 
Mill.  He  has  not,  therefore,  done  in  this 
matter  what  amounts  even  to  an  indiscretion, 
least  of  all  to  an  offense,  and  hence  all  the 
prosecutor's  ingenious  and  skillful  pleading 


does  not  deserve,  as  I  am  persuaded  it  will 
not  receive,  at  your  hands,  any  serious  con- 
sideration. 

Professor  Swing  is  next  charged  with  hav- 
ing said,  in  substancii,  in  the  Lakeside 
Mo7it/ili/,  that  liobert  Patterson  and  Kobert 
Collycr  preached  the  same  doctrine.  This 
also,  is  a  conclu.sion  of  Professor  Patton,  and 
one  which  does  manifest  violence  to  the  lan- 
guage which  tlic  defendant  employed.  He 
said  that  the  two  ministers  preached  practi- 
cally ;  and  to  infer  from  this  that  they 
preached  the  same  gospel,  is  about  as  reason- 
able as  to  assume  that  two  men  are  declared 
to  preach  the  same  gospel  because  they  both 
preach  earnestly,  or  both  preach  from  man- 
uscript, or  are  both  eloquent  men.  In  like 
manner,  the  prosecutor's  comments  upon  the 
words  "  local  Gospel,"  grossly  pervert  Pro- 
fessor Swing's  meaning  ;  as  if  he  had  said 
that  the  Gospel  was  one  thing  in  Pittsburgh 
and  another  in  Saint  Louis,  and  still  another 
in  Chicago.  I  submit  that  no  fair  minded 
man,  reading  another  for  the  sole  purpose  of 
getting  at  his  real  thought,  would  ever  be  in 
danger  of  mistaking  the  meaning  of  these 
words.  He  would  understand  them  as  re- 
ferring to  the  differe7it  modes  of  presenting 
the  Gospel,  and  not  as  signifying  a  diflerent 
Gospel  for  each.  In  this  sense,  the  local 
Gospel  where  I  preach,  and  the  local  Gospel 
where  Professor  Patton  preaches,  are  very 
diflerent  from  each  other ;  and  I  suppose 
they  always  will  be,  unless — what  is  exceed- 
ingly unlikely — the  prosecutor  comes  to 
adopt,  substantially,  my  method  of  stating 
and  illustrating  truth.  Mr.  Moderator,  it  is 
hard  to  be  patient  with  a  critic  so  unreason- 
ably captious,  so  grossly  unfair,  so  absurdly 
whimsical,  as  the  framer  of  this  indictment 
has  shown  himself  to  be.  I  say  unhesita- 
tingly, and  reverently,  that  if  he  were  to 
subject  the  language  of  Christ  to  the  same 
torture  that  he  applies  to  the  language  of 
Professor  Swing,  he  would  have  no  difiiculty 
at  all  in  making  Him  out  a  teacher  of  false 
doctrines 

There  is,  then,  nothing  in  this  specification 
that  is  definite,  except  one  act  and  one  say- 
ing. The  act  is  that  Professor  Swing  gave  a 
lecture  in  aid  of  a  Unitarian  chapel,  and  the 
saying  is,  that  he  considered  religion  a  mode 
of  virtue.  But  neither  the  act  nor  the  say- 
ing amounts  to  an  offense.  By  no  fair  con- 
struction can  this  act  of  lecturing  in  aid  of  a 
chapel,  erected  to  the  memory  of  Mary  Price 


138 


THE  TRIAL  OF  REV.  DAVID,  SWING. 


Collier,  be  taken  out  of  the  domain  of  Chris- 
tian casuistry  and  private  conscience.  There 
is  wliere  it  belongs,  and  there  is  where  the 
adjudication  must  be  held,  and  not  in  this 
court.  You  may  say,  Mr.  Moderator,  that 
you  Would  not  perform  such  a  service,  and  it 
•would  be  your  right  to  decline  any  such  in- 
vitation, if  you  were  to  receive  one.  But 
you  have  no  right  to  impeach  the  motives, 
still  less  to  demand  a  formal  censure,  of  a 
brother,  who,  in  the  exercise  of  his  own 
judgment,  and  in  conformity  with  the  decis- 
ions of  his  own  conscience,  renders  such  a 
service  when  asked  to  do  so.  So  great  and 
good  a  man,  and  so  sound  a  theologian,  as 
the  venerable  Dr.  Hodge,  gave  his  counte- 
nance and  support,  publicly,  to  the  Roman 
Catholic  church,  on  a  memorable  occasion 
which  we  all  remember.  Yet  it  has  been  the 
fashion  with  Protestants  (and,  perhaps,  the 
prosecutor  has  followed  the  fashion,)  to  de- 
nounce this  church  as  "  the  mother  of  har- 
lots " — that  great  Babylon,  whose  exemplary 
and  terrible  overthrow  is  set  forth  in  the  vis- 
ions of  the  Apocalypse.  Now,  sir,  liberty  of 
private  judgment  must  be  allowed  here. 
Because  you  think  that  temperance  means 
total  abstinence,  you  must  not  arraign  the 
man  who  cannot  see  exactly  with  your  eyes. 
Because  j'ou  count  it  an  ofiense  against  good 
morals,  and  divine  law,  to  ride  in  the  street 
cars  on  Sunday,  you  have  no  right  to  indict 
before  the  church  a  man  who  may  happen  to 
think  and  act  difierently.  Because  you  be- 
lieve it  to  be  a  sin  against  God  and  man  to 
use  tobacco,  you  must  not,  therefore,  set  up 
your  own  private  opinion  as  the  rule  of  faith 
and  practice  for  others.  Besides,  if  it  is  a 
disciplinable  offense  for  a  Presbyterian  min- 
ister to  help  Unitarianism  by  lecturing — and 
it  is  simply  a  begging  of  the  question  to  say 
that  it  does — is  it  not  equally  a  disciplinable 
offense  for  a  Presbyterian  Elder  to  keep  on 
Bale  Unitarian,  and  even  infidel  books  ?  The 
lecturer  did  his  work  without  pay,  but  the 
bookseller  carries  on  his  trade  for  the  pur- 
pose of  honorable  and  private  gain.  No,  sir, 
you  cannot  adjudicate  on  a  question  of  this 
kind.  It  is  a  gross  invasion  of  a  private 
right  to  undertake  to  do  so.  So  much  for 
the  act  which  this  specification  sets  forth  as 
an  offense. 

How  is  it  with  the  saying  ?  Prof.  Swing 
is  arraigned  for  saying  that  the  Gospel  is  "  a 
mode  of  virtue."  Well,  is  not  that  a  good 
definition  (jf  the  Gospel  on  its  practical  side  ? 


It  certainly  is  not  a  mode  of  vice.  The 
language  does  not  refer  to  the  Gospel  in  the 
abstract,  or  as  a  system  of  doctrines  received 
by  the  understanding,  but  it  sets  forth  the 
Gospel  by  its  fruits.  It  declares  that  the 
effect  of  the  Gospel  is  to  make  men  virtuous, 
to  lead  them  to  holiness,  and  to  prepare  them 
for  a  better  life  hereafter.  When,  therefore, 
the  prosecutor  criticises  and  carps  at  this 
language,  as  if  there  were  no  natural,  nor 
even  possible  explanation  of  it  which  would 
make  it  accord  with  evangelical  teaching, 
the  presumption  is  at  least  a  fair  one,  that  he 
believes  in  a  salvation  that  is  divorced  from 
morals. 

Mr.  Moderator. — I  am  very  sorry  to  ask 
for  an  adjournment,  but  weakened  as  I  have 
been  by  illness,  I  feel  unable  to  go  on, 

At  this  point  the  Presbytery  adjourned, 
with  prayer,  to  meet  Friday,  May  15th,  at  2 
P.  M. 


Feiday,  May  15,  1874. 
The  Presbytery  met  at  2  o'clock  P.  M. 
and  was  opened  with  prayer.  The  order  of 
business  was  to  hear  the  counsel  for  the  de- 
fense continue  his  argument.  But  at  this 
point  Prof.  Swing  was  accorded  the  privilege 
of  speaking  in  his  own  defense. 

ARGUMENT  OF  THE  DEFENDANT. 

Mr.  Moderator  :  It  was  the  understand- 
ing among  my  brethren  that  the  burden  of 
this  matter  should  not  fall  upon  me,  both  on 
account  of  my  ill  health  and  distaste  for  it, 
and  up  to  this  morning  I  supposed  I  should 
have  nothing  to  say;  but  my  counsel  also, 
having  very  poor  health  to-day,  I  have 
thought  it  best  to  assist  him  this  afternoon 
by  speaking  before  you  for  the  space  of  -pQv- 
haps  an  hour,  and  touching  ujson  some  of 
the  points  which,  perhaps,  I  could  more 
easily  explain  than  he  could  himself.  I  know 
not  what,  may' be  the  etiquette  of  the  case. 
I  hope  the  prosecutor  will  consider  it  as  no 
breach  of  etiquette.  I  do  not  know  the  exact 
duties  of  the  prisoner  at  the  bar,  but  would 
state  that  the  ground  I  will  pass  over  will 
not  be  passed  over  by  Brother  Noyes,  and 
thus  time  will  be  saved, — at  least  not  lost  by 
our  both  speaking. 

I  thought  it  would  be  my  pleasure  to  ful- 
fill the  words  of  Lucretius,  "that  it  is  the 
province  of  some  to  sit  upon  the  calm 
mountain  summit  and  see  the  poor  sailors 
struggling  and  toiling  in  the  storm  and 
waves  beneath  ;"  but  the  illness  of  my  counsel 


PKOF.  SWING'S  ARGUMENT. 


13'.) 


has  disturbed  my  repos?,  and  has  conipcllod 
me  to  go  down  into  this  hattlo-field.  I  shall, 
I  hope,  not  be  compelled  to  go  beyond  the 
skirmish  line,  for  the  sound  of  war  always 
frightens  me,  especially  when  the  war  is  waged 
for  conquest,  or  for  the  extension  of  slavery 
beyond  its  present  limits.  As  some  statesman 
said  he  would  not  want  to  tell  a  lie  for  any- 
thing less  than  an  empire,  so  it  does  not  seem 
desirable  to  go  into  a  theological  light  where 
the  price  of  victory  or  the  pain  of  defeat  is 
exceedingly  small.  Xenophon  says  of  Clear- 
chus  that,  notwithstanding  his  bright  armor 
and  royal  robes,  yet,  when  the  baggage  wa- 
gons got  entangled  or  stalled,  he  would  put 
his  own  shoulder  to  the  wheel,  going  himself 
into  the  mud.  The  theological  baggage 
wagons  upon  my  side  of  the  house  are  block- 
aded to-day,  and,  like  the  old  general — will- 
ingly I  descend  into  the  mud.  Let  me  ask 
your  attention  to  Stuart  Mill.  When  he  died, 
our  statesmen  had  just  been  breaking  their 
hearts  over  the  pursuit  of  presidential  honors. 
Greeley  and  Chase  had  both  died  of  grief 
over  lost  honors.  In  such  an  hour  I  thought 
it  a  piece  of  good  fortune  that  I  could  hold 
up  before  the  public  a  name  tliat  found  suf- 
ficient honor  and  sufficient  object  of  life  in 
greatness  of  personal  character.  And  hence 
I  said : 

"If  it  were  not  for  such  men  as  Mr.  Mill 
coming  here  and  there  in  human  life,  we 
might  fail  to  know  what  that  thing  called 
soul  is.  I  do  not  know  where,  in  the  public 
men  of  our  land,  we  can  see  so  well  the 
picture  of  human  dignity.  Swayed  out  of 
balance  by  a  love  of  otfice  and  gold,  disturbed 
by  a  storm  of  bad  passions,  our  public  men 
reveal  the  soul,  not  in  its  nobleness,  but  in 
some  shape  that  begs  for  pity  and  forgive- 
ness. 

"Our  great  men  are  all  said  to  die  disap- 
pointed, and  half  broken-hearted,  because 
they  fail  to  catch  a  four-year  bauble  from 
the  tumultuous  crowd.  To  run  for  president, 
and  then  die  in  glory  or  in  cloud,  according 
to  the  counting  of  the  votes,  has  become  a 
brief  history  of  some  of  our  greatest  men. 
It  is  a  sad  remembrance  of  Mr.  Greeley  and 
Mr.  Chase,  that  their  failure  to  reach  a  great 
office  turned  their  days  into  a  winter  of  dis- 
content. 

"  All  over  our  land,  it  seems  to  be  for- 
gotten that  a  human  soul  may  be  something 
to   which  no  office  can  add   anything,  and 


from  which  no  political  defeat  can  take  any- 
thing away. 

"  God  has  in  no  way  connected  human 
greatness  with  a  ballot  box. 

'  The  boast  of  heraldry,  the  pomp  of  power, 
AnJ  all  that  rank  and  fortune  ever  gave 

Await  alike  the  inevitable  hour; 

The  path  of  glory  leads  but  to  the  grave.' 

"  From  such  a  scene,  it  is  sweet  to  turn  to 
a  man  who  might  have  honored  any  office, 
but  whom  no  office  could  have  honored. 
Notliing  lasting  for  four  years  could  have 
added  to  a  soul  great  before  the  four  years 
and  great  afterward.  Mr.  Mill  could  scarcely 
have  known  when  an  earthly  honor  came  to 
his  forehead,  or  when  it  departed.  Like 
Marcus  Aurclius,  whose  laurels  of  virtue 
were  greater  than  the  throne  of  the  Roman 
empire,  Mr.  Mill's  own  forehead  was  nobler 
in  itself  than  it  could  have  been  rendered  by 
all  the  political  wreaths  of  his  generation. 

"True  greatness  never  reveals  nor  cherishes 
much  ambition,  for  the  gift  of  mind  and  the 
possession  of  a  profound  character  leave  little 
for  the  soul  to  wish  or  for  earth  to  care  for. 
Hence  in  the  blessed  life  of  the  Saviour  we 
perceive  no  trace  of  popular  ambition,  but 
everywhere  simple  greatness  of  spirit,  as  if 
that  were  the  supreme  destiny  of  rational 
being. 

"Oh,  what  an  era  would  begin  in  our 
land,  if,  instead  of  waiting  for  something 
outside  of  self  to  come  to  us  and  honor  us, 
our  citizens  should  unfold  the  glory  within 
them,  as  a  flower  sends  forth  beauty  and 
perfume  from  its  own  opening  heart." 

And  then,  this  was  the  chief  point:  that 
the  glory  of  such  a  mind  and  of  such  a  philo- 
sophy as  Mill  possessed  came  to  him  through 
Christianity;  for  I  said,  though  Mr.  ^lill  was 
not  a  Christian,  yet  Christianity  had  always 
been  all  around  him  and  had  forced  into  him 
every  virtue  he  possessed  ;  had  given  him  the 
entire  character  of  the  nineteenth  century ; 
just  as  Lady  Hester  Stanhope,  flying  to  the 
south  land  to  escape  England,  carried  with 
her  everywhere  the  English  customs  and 
English  thought.  So  Stuart  Mill,  though  an 
atheist,  carried,  in  all  his  thoughts  and  in  all 
his  life,  every  germ  of  Christianity  except 
his  personal  belief. 

3Iill's  character  was  all  wrought  out  in  a 
Christian  atmosphere  although  his  father 
vainly  tried  to  shield  the  child  from  the  in- 
fluence of  the  great  religion  of  Jesus  Christ 
— tried  in  vain.     And  then  I  said  what  a 


140 


THE  TRIAL  OF  REV.  DAVID  SWING. 


liberal  world  need  regret  most  was,  not  that 
he  was  not  a  Presbyterian  or  a  Methodist, 
but  that  the  poor  unfortunate  man  had  no 
trace  of  any  kind  of  religion  in  his  soul.  We 
would  have  been  thankful  if  he  had  had  any 
religion  in  his  heart. 

Now,  while  I  was  thus  dealing  with  Stuart 
Mill,  what  was  my  prosecutor  doing  ?  Had  he 
called  together  two  thousand  to  tell  you  how 
Stuart  Mill  had  been  sent  to  perdition  from 
all  eternity  ?  Was  he  faithful  as  a  great 
public  man  to  his  trust  ?  That  is  a  matter  of 
opinion.  But  it  is  my  impression  that  he  was 
praising  Agassiz,  not  because  he  had  an  or- 
thodox creed  (Oh  !  no,  that  was  not  what  his 
liberal  world  rejoiced  over),  but  he  was  re- 
joicing because,  upon  some  occasion,  the 
great  naturalist  had  acknowledged  a  Supreme 
Being,  and  just  barely  escaped  being  an 
atheist.  And  did  the  prosecution  avail  him- 
self of  Agassi  z's  death  to  preach  atMcVicker's 
that  a  prayer  is  only  offensive  to  God  unless 
it  be  connected  with  a  belief  in  the  Deity, 
or  expiatory  atonement  of  Christ.  Did  he 
rise  to  the  greatness  of  the  occasion  and  in- 
form the  community  that  there  was  no  hope 
for  Agassiz's  soul  ?  Did  he  come  forward 
with  his  ordination  vows  upon  him  and  hand 
over  Agassiz  to  perdition  in  the  following 
language  from  the  confession  of  faith  :  "Much 
less  can  men,  not  professing  the  Christian 
religion,  be  saved  in  any  other  way  what- 
soever, be  they  ever  so  diligent  to  frame  their 
lives  according  to  the  light  of  nature,  and 
the  law  of  that  religion  they  profess;  and  to 
assert  and  maintain  that  they  may  is  very 
pernicious,  and  to  be  detested." 

And  yet,  in  his  paper,  that  went  to  four- 
teen thousand  families  as  he  claims,  he  held 
up  Agassiz  as  a  Christian  and  scientific  man. 

Let  us  pass  to  a  second  offense  alleged  by 
the  prosecutor :  "We  know  not  what  nor 
where  is  our  God,  our  heaven."  This  sermon 
was  preached  to  show  the  reason  why  the  re- 
ligious world  had  always  been  full  of  debate. 
It  came  partly  from  the  fact  that  moral  ideas 
have  no  such  evidences  as  are  enjoyed  by  ma- 
thematical ideas.  There  has  never  been  one  set 
of  men  to  hold  that  twice  tAvo  make  four,  and 
another  set  to  hold  that  twice  two  make  five, 
because  these  ideas  are  fixed.  But  there  has 
been  one  set  of  men  to  hold  to  the  theory  of 
an  expiatory  atonement  and  another  to  hold 
to  the  theory  of  a  propitiatory  atonement 
because  men  have  no  slate  and  pencil  by 
which  to  fix  these  ideas  beyond  all  debate, 


no  pyramid  upon  which  to  measure  these 
things.  The  prosecutor  had  pounded  the  con- 
fession of  faith  and  declared  that  he  had  a 
standard.  But,  unfortunately,  the  whole  reli- 
gious world  are  not  Presbyterians,  and  un- 
fortunately these  Presbyterians,  who  are  here 
to-day,  do  not  understand  it  alike. 

Therefore  we  do  not  mathematically  know 
what  our  God  is,  and  we  are  not  called  upon 
exactly  to  know.  You  do  not  know  it  as  you 
know  that  two  and  two  are  four  or  that  they 
are  not  five;  and  hence  the  debates  and  dis- 
cords, just  such  as  have  gathered  us  here 
to-day. 

But  the  prosecutor  has  not  arraigned  me 
only  for  this  dreadful  idea  that  we  do  not 
know  mathematically  about  our  God.  He  has 
not  arraigned  me  alone. 

If  the  Holy  Spirit  was  so  unfortunate  as  to 
furnish  poor  me  with  such  a  text  as  that  of 
the  sermon  "Clouds  and  darkness  are  round 
about  Him,"  the  prosecutor  knows  where  to 
lay  his  charges  and  specifications  in  this  par- 
ticular. It  is  intimated  in  Job  that  no  one 
by  searching  can  find  out  God,  and  hence 
when  the  presbytery  shall  pass  sentence  upon 
me  I  shall  insist  upon  their  making  Job  and 
the  97th  psalm  particeps  criminis  in  this  case 
— and  if,  in  such  good  company  as  Job  and 
the  Psalmist,  I  should  not  much  fear  the  pro- 
secutor of  this  charge,  he  need  not  be  much 
surprised.  I  will  anticipate  the  reply  of  the 
prosecutor.  I  will  not  wait  for  him  to  rise 
to  explain.  He  will  plead  that  the  Bible  was 
written  before  the  confession  of  faith  and 
that  the  Psalmist  was  in  doubt  about  the  na- 
ture of  God  and  that  Paul  shrank  before  the 
mystery  of  heaven,  saying  "eye  hath  not 
seen,  nor  ear  heard,"  because  they  lived  be- 
fore the  Westminster  confession  had  been 
formulated  at  Westminster,  and  expounded 
at  Chicago.  In  the  revised  editions  of  the 
Bible,  when  readers  shall  come  upon  my  text, 
"Clouds  and  darkness  are  round  about  him," 
they  will  no  doubt  see  a  marginal  reference, 
"for  refutation  of  this  idea  see  Prof.  Patton's 
charges  and  specifications." 

But  to  be  serious  again.  Professor  Patton 
points  to  the  Confession  of  Faith  and  reads  : 
"God  is  a  spirit."  Well,  does  the  prosecutor 
know  what  a  spirit  is  ?  It  is  to  be  hoped  he 
will  elucidate  this  point  and  also  tell  us  where 
heaven  is,  for  he  will  not  be  so  unkind  as  to 
arraign  a  brother  for  want  of  information 
when  he  himself  possesses  it  and  refuses  to 
deliver  it  to  me  and  the  presbytery.      A 


PKOF.  SWING'S  ARGUMENT. 


141 


young  man  stepped  up  to  a  clergyman  east 
and  asked  him  if  it  was  possible  to  know  all 
about  God.  The  clergj'man,  who  was  "a  queer 
fellow,"  as  Trowbridge  says,  replied  that 
personally  he  had  no  such  knowledge,  but 
that  there  was  a  man  out  in  JMinucsota  who 
knew  him.  Well,  now,  brethren,  if  we  have 
this  information  at  some  point  nearer  than 
Minnesota,  it  ought  to  be  forthcoming — and 
free  to  all. 

Let  us  pass  to  another  idea  that  has  per- 
plexed the  prosecutor :  "This  multitude 
measures  a  great  revelation  of  God  above 
that  day  when  earth  possessed  but  one  man 
or  family,  and  that  one  without  language, 
and  without  learning,  and  without  virtue." 
"In  the  first  human  family  God  could  no 
more  display  His  perfections  than  a  musician 
like  Mozart  could  unfold  his  genius  to  an 
infant  or  to  a  South  Sea  islander."  Now  the 
meaning  of  that  passage  is  this :  I  know  not 
how  he  may  understand  it,  but  the  sermon 
was  upon  the  days  that  are  past."  "Ask, 
now,    the  days    that  are   ])ast.      Look   into 

history "  and  I  found,  in   looking  into 

history,  that  the  glory  of  God  unfolds  itself 
as  the  human  race  advances.  "The  6,000 
years  past  are  the  great  unfolding  of  the 
Almighty :  not  in  the  Darwinian  sense,  nor 
in  the  Spencerian  sense,  but  in  the  Christian 
sense.  Adam,  however  innocent,  and  how- 
ever beautiful  in  his  character,  and  I  believe 
he  was  both  innocent  and  beautiful,  had  no 
cities,  no  arts,  no  eloquence,  no  poetry,  no 
cross  of  Jesus  Christ,  no  benevolence,  no 
charity  for  the  multitude.  Hence  God  no 
more  unfolded  his  perfections  in  Adam  than 
Mozart  or  Beethoven  could  make  known 
their  vast  realm  of  music  to  an  infant  or  a 
savage.  It  is  the  grand  opening  up  of  the 
■world  that  gives  us  the  glory  of  God :  the 
manifold  glory  of  God.  The  many-pictured 
glory  of  God  is  all  thrown  forward  and  made 
visible  by  this  ever-unfolding  earth,  and 
from  the  very  moment  God  created  Adam 
his  own  glory  went  marching  forward  with 
continual  increase." 

If  the  prosecutor  knew  the  meaning  of  the 
illustration,  he  would  know  that  this  lan- 
guage did  not  imply  that  Adam  was  either 
an  infant  or  a  savage.  It  simply  means  that 
God's  glory  is  too  large  a  spectacle  to  be 
cast  upon  Adam  alone.  All  the  6,000  years 
of  humanity  combined  together  to  reveal 
this  wisdom,  and  power,  and  grace,  and 
manifold  glory  of  God.     Why,  the  prosecu- 


tor has  taken  the  cross  of  Jesus  Christ  out 
of  the  world,  and  has  the  world  just  as  great 
in  Adam  alone  as  it  is  in  the  whole  human 
race. 

And  then  I  went  on  to  illustrate,  or  to 
apply  this  thought:  "So  each  individual 
cannot  gather  up  the  glory  of  his  life  in  any 
one  year.  It  must  lie  all  over  his  past.  It 
is  all  his  past  he  must  drag  along  after  him, 
and  if  he  has  for  fifty  years  fed  the  poor  and 
blessed  them  like  a  Saviour,  or  if  he  has  cared 
for  the  slave  like  a  Wilberforce  all  his  life, 
or  preached  like  a  Paul  or  a  Wesley 
all  his  life,  he  will  go  into  futurity  with  all 
this  record  back  of  him."  And  here  the 
Bible  must  be  arraigned,  for  it  says  "their 
works  do  follow  them"  and  the  converse  was 
shown  to  be  true,  that  if  a  human  soul  spent 
life  in  seeking  gold  only,  or  in  seeking 
wicked  pleasures,  or  in  buying  and  selling 
slaves  or  even  in  persecuting  heretics,  that 
long  life  thus  spent  would  come  dragging 
after  the  soul  into  eternity.  And  I  said  that 
"no  man  can  go  to  heaven  gloriously  unless 
he  can  look  sweetly  back."  If  this  be  heresy, 
Mr.  Moderator,  write  me  down  as  a  heretic, 
and  make  the  letters  large  and  plain.  Why, 
even  old  Livy  said,  "You  must  keep  contin- 
ually looking  at  the  past,  because,"  he  says, 
"things  that  are  past  may  be  repented  of, 
but  they  never  can  be  erased."  And  one  of 
our  own  poets  says  :  "To-morrow  you  may 
do  your  worst,  for  I  lived  yesterday."  And 
old  Martial  saj's :  "Did'st  thou  say  thou 
wilt  live  to-morrow  ?  He  is  a  wise  man 
who  lived  yesterday."  To-day  is  the  sublime 
part  of  life,  because  it  is  continually  making 
that  yesterday  which  will  always  follow  us, 
go  where  we  may,  for  glory  or  for  shame. 
And  hence,  I  rebuked  the  young  people 
present  for  always  living  in  the  future,  and 
paying  no  attention  to  the  past.  And  I 
quoted  from  Dryden  to  them,  saying  : 

"Trust  on  and  think  the  morrow  will  repay  ; 
The  morrow's  falser  than  the  former  day ; 
Lies  wurse,  and  while  it  says  you  shall  be  blest. 
Steals  all  the  pleasures  that  you  once  possessed." 

Let  us  come  now  to  the  dear  Penelope  and 
Socrates.  My  brethren,  you  must  excuse  me 
for  treating  this  CJise  with  something  like 
levity,  for  it  has  not  in  it  to  me  one  particle 
of  solemnity. 

Now  that  sermon  was  all  regarding  the 
value  of  being  above  saying  or  seeming.  It 
was  on  Soul  Culture.  The  idea  was  that  the 
value  of  life  has  not  in  what  creed  one  says 


142 


THE  TKIAL  OF  KEY.  DAVID  SWING. 


over  and  over,  but  in  what  creed  one  lives. 
And  hence  I  said:  "A  soul  with  a  defective 
creed  may  be  higher  and  may  be  nobler  than 
a  soul  which  knows  more  but  which  disre- 
gards all  its  precepts"— an  idea  I  have  heard 
all  my  life  in  the  Presbyterian  church. 

Dr.  MacMaster,  whom  the  prosecutor  suc- 
ceeds, legally  and  chronologically,  said  that 
he  believed  that  "somewhere  on  the  confines 
of  heaven  would  be  found  Socrates  and  Pene- 
lope." And  I  think  our  general  assembly, 
a  few  years  ago,  offered  a  premium  to  some 
one  who  would  produce  the  best  tract  upon 
the  condition  of  the  heathen  in  the  future 
world;  and  Dr.  Smythe,  of  South  Carolina, 
who  took  the  prize,  said,  "All  those  heathen 
who  live  up  to  the  light  of  their  best  know- 
ledge might  hope  for  happiness  beyond." 

I  did  not  say  how  great  was  the  happiness 
of  Penelope  or  Socrates.  But  the  prosecutor 
has  unwittingly  arraigned  Jesus  Christ.  I 
fear  my  zealous  friend  or  enemy,  friend  I 
guess,  does  not  read  his  Bible  as  much  as  he 
does  his  Confession  of  Eaith.  But,  no  wonder, 
for  he  says:  "We  must  guard  against  too 
great  attachment  to  scripture  phraseology, 
and  must  wait  to  have  our  religion  well  for- 
mulated." Regarding  Socrates  and  Penelope 
we  shall  now  read  from  the  words  of  Christ. 
Did  you  know  He  has  sproken  of  them  ?  He 
has.  "Woe!  unto  thee,  Chorasin  (Catherine 
II.),  for  it  shall  be  more  tolerable  for  Tyre 
and  Sidon  (Socrates  and  Penelope)  in  the  day 
of  judgment  than  for  thee."  Now  we  again 
anticipate  the  objection  of  the  prosecutor. 
He  will  say  this  scripture  was  announced 
before  the  Confession  was  formulated, — and 
that  my  ordination  vows  were  upon  me. 
Well,  in  subsequent  editions  of  the  Bible, 
readers  will  find  a  marginal  reference  "upon 
this  passage  from  Christ,  "For  refutation  of 
this  passage  about  Tyre  and  Sidon,  see  Prof. 
Patton  on  Socrates  and  Penelope,  and  Con. 
Faith,  chap.  10,  sec.  24.  But  let  us  pass  to 
other  things.  The  learned  prosecutor,  after 
unfolding  to  you  the  evolution  theory  of 
Spencer  and  others,  says,  as  usual,  Mr.  Swing 
holds  these,  and  yet  I  am,  I  believe,  the  only 
Chicago  minister  who  has  published  a  ser- 
mon, in  part,  against  that  theory.  While 
the  prosecutor  was  proving  the  divinity  or 
deity  of  Christ,  I  don't  know  which,  from 
the  date  anno  Domini,  claiming  that  no  na- 
tion would  reckon  its  years  from  anything 
less  than  a  God,  while  he  was  thus  teaching 
the  divine  origin  of  Mahommed  and  of  the 


Olympiads  of  Greece,  and  of  Eomulus  and 
Remus,  I  was  on  the  same  Sunday  trying  to 
overthrow  the  Spencerian  calculations.  Here 
is  what  I  said:  "It  is  not,  certainly,  a  myth 
that  there  is  a  human  race  ;  and  hence,  there 
must  have  been  a  first  pair  in  this  long  series, 
and  this  first  pair  must  have  had  a  first  home 
and  a  creator  just  at  hand  ;  and  this  pair  must 
have  made  their  first  move  in  virtue  or  sin  ; 
and  from  what  sin  we  now  see  in  the  world, 
not  much  doubt  can  remain  as  to  what  line 
of  conduct  this  first  pair  followed,  and  that 
they  early  left  a  paradise  of  virtue  is  the  ver- 
dict of  history.  The  theory  most  in  conflict 
with  this  Bible  picture  of  primitive  man  is 
the  almost  popular  notion  that  man  is  a  grad- 
ual result  of  progress  in  the  animal  kingdom, 
and  never  had  a  paradise,  but  is  on  the  way 
toward  one,  from  a  cellular  and  electric  start- 
ing point  a  million  years  back.  Against  this 
theory,  however,  rises  up  the  fact  that  in  the 
thousands  of  years  of  history  no  animal  is 
showing  tha  least  sign  of  passing  over  into 
that  moral  consciousness,  that  self-hood  which 
so  wonderfully  distinguishes  man.  The  high- 
est order  of  brutes  are  doing  absolutely  noth- 
ing toward  forming  a  language  or  toward 
reaching  that  consciousness  of  'nie'  and  'not 
me,'  which  joins  man  to  the  divine;  there  is 
no  eftbrt  visible  on  the  part  of  the  most  intel- 
ligent quadrumana  to  build  a  school-house  or 
start  a  country  newspaper;  and  if  in  the 
historic  period  no  progress  whatever  has 
been  made,  and  that,  too,  with  the  advantage 
of  human  association,  what  could  they  have 
done  in  two  historic  periods?  If  6,000  j'^ears 
give  nothing,  what  will  6,000,000  years  give? 
The  best  reason  I  can  myself  bring  to  bear 
upon  this  matter  leads  me  to  see  man  setting 
forth  as  man  and  setting  forth  from  a  crea- 
tor ;  hence  he  had  a  place  which  we  may  call 
Eden,  and  lowly  reason  may  join  the  Bible 
in  giving  it  river  banks  and  trees  and  flowers 
and  the  song  of  birds." 

The  prosecutor  has  read  my  sermons  toler- 
ably well  only.  Let  us  pass  now  to  the  109th 
psalm.  I  am  very  glad  to  see  that  this  mat- 
ter has  at  last  been  put  to  rest.  The  prose- 
cutor has  wholly  given  up  all  that  he  claimed 
here.  It  was  my  theory,  you  know,  that  this 
was  a  special  psalm.  No  part  of  the  perpet- 
ual hymnology  of  the  world,  not  inspired  for 
all  times,  like  the  23d  psalm  or  the  90th.  My 
theory  was  that  it  was  an  adaptation  to  a 
military  age,  when  the  church  advanced,  not 
by  persuading  its  enemies  but  by  extermin- 


PROP.  SWING'S  ARGUMENT. 


148 


ating  them ;  a  psalm  dictated  by  the  Al- 
mighty for  an  age  a  hundred  or  five  hundred 
years  or  more,  and  that  Christ  has  announced 
the  perpetual  law  of  life,  the  everlasting  law 
of  life,  when  He  has  said  that  you  shall  pray 
for  your  enemies  and  bless  them  that  perse- 
cute you  and  despitefully  use  you. 

My  point  was  that,  as  Christ  repealed  a 
divorce  law  which  was  divinely  given  for  a 
certain  period  only,  so  He  did,  by  His  per- 
son, repeal  also  a  psalm  full  of  curses  and 
took  it  away  from  the  everlasting  hj^mnology 
of  life  ;  that  the  same  God  who  passed  a  bad 
divorce  law,  could  inspire  a  bad  psalm  also, 
and  that  when  He  recalled  the  one,  He  could 
recall  the  other.  And  though  I  may  be  mis- 
taken, yet  my  principle  is  founded  right  on 
the  inspiration  of  the  Bible. 

But  this  idea  the  prosecutor  has  at  last 
given  up,  that  it  was  a  perpetual  psalm,  for 
he  says  now  that  the  109th  psalm  was  written 
as  a  curse  upon  Judas  Iscariot. 

This  is  all  I  want.  Only  his  theory  is 
narrower  than  mine,  for  my  theory  was  that 
it  was  used  by  the  Jews  as  a  military  hymn 
for  hundreds  of  years,  and  then,  by  divine 
command,  applied  also  to  Judas  Iscariot. 
But  if  the  prosecutor  tells  us  that  it  was  even 
too  bad  for  the  Jewish  people  to  sing,  and 
that  it  lay  dormant  a  thousand  years  waiting 
for  a  great  traitor  like  Judas  to  come  before 
the  psalm  should  spring  ijito  life,  I  have  not 
in  my  heart  any  reason  to  object.  And  Judas 
being  now  dead,  the  psalm  has  been  abro- 
gated from  Christian  hymnology,  I  trust, — 
expired  by  limitation — if  Judas  is  confessed 
hy  the  prosecutor  to  be  dead. 

I  know  not  whether  anyone  needs  a  word 
■with  regard  to  those  Hebrew  wars,  but  I  will 
make  a  remark  or  two  regarding  them.  My 
position  all  along  has  been  this :  That  God 
in  the  Bible  revealed  two  forms  of  His  will  ; 
that  in  some  parts  of  the  Bible  He  expresses 
Himself  absolutely,  as  in  the  Sermon  upon 
the  Mount.  He  there  announces  everlasting 
principles  for  all  the  human  race  everj^- 
where,  but  that  in  other  parts  of  the  Old 
Testament  God  accepts  of  a  temporary  kind 
of  moralit}',  and  that  God  was  everywhere 
influenced  by  the  presence  of  man,  and  was 
not  promulging  His  own  abstract  wish,  but 
was  everywhere  accommodating  Himself  to 
the  presence  of  a  sinful  race;  and  hence,  all 
through  the  Old  Testament,  it  is  not  God 
alone  that  is  marching  along — it  is  God  and 
a  wicked  race.     And  hence,  when  he  per- 


mitted or  ordered  the  Israelites  to  go  up  and 
destroy  the  Canaanites,  it  was  not  God  acting 
absolutely  and  announcing  a  great  principle 
of  action,  but  it  was  God  acting  under  the 
influence  of  the  presence  of  those  wicked 
Israelites  ;  not  inventing  those  wars  or  evolv- 
ing them  from  His  divine  mind,  but  per- 
mitting them,  tolerating  them,  just  as  He 
did  the  old  divorce  law  and  all  the  wicked- 
ness of  that  era. 

This  is  my  position  on  that  point.  But 
when  Christ  came  to  the  New  Testament, 
there  He  announces  an  era  of  peace — ever- 
lasting peace.  He  began  to  unfold  Himself, 
not  as  a  Deity  restricted  by  the  presence  of 
sinful  man,  but  as  a  Deity  all  glorious  in  his 
own  right,  and  in  His  own  "name  unfolding 
the  everlasting  in  Jesus  Christ.  I  hope  I  am 
theologian  enough  to  understand  this,  and 
hence  I  said  that  young  men  are  coming 
along  now  who  want  to  know  about  these 
things;  and  they  all  know  what  infidels  say. 
They  all  know  what  Mr.  Froude  has  said 
about  the  109th  psalm,  and  hence  they  want 
a  theory  to  be  handed  them  by  our  theological 
professors  and  our  clergymen  which  will  save 
them  from  the  infidelity  of  Froude  and  men 
of  that  class.  Here,  the  prosecutor  says,  I 
indorse  Froude.  This  is  simply  nonsense. 
"What  I  plead  for  is,  that  men  of  learning 
like  Prof.  Patton,  having  his  high  position, 
shall  elaborate  some  theory  of  revelation 
that  a  young  man  can  take  to  his  heart,  and 
not  say,  when  some  one  asks  him,  "What 
about  the  109th  psalm,"  "You  go  and  mind 
your  business,  young  man ;  that  is  inspired  I" 
That  is  what  I  call  the  theory  of  admiration. 
A  young  man  comes  to  him  and  says : 
"What  about  those  bloody  wars  where  the 
Israelites  went  out  and  destroyed  the  Ca- 
naanites, men,  women  and  children?"  and 
he  replies,  "Young  man,  the  Bible  is  inspired. 
It  is  the  Word  of  God."  Now  is  not  that 
horrible?  That  makes  infidels — covers  the 
world  with  infidels.  And  yet,  there  is  an 
explanation  of  all  the  diflicultios  of  the  Old 
Testament,  which  it  is  the  duty  of  every 
clergjmian  having  the  vows  of  Jesus  Christ 
upon  him  to  unfold  to  the  young  man  of  this 
age  and  crush  Froude  to  powder  beneath 
their  logic — not  their  malice. 

Then  I  observe,  too,  when  it  came  time  to 
build  the  temple,  God  would  not  let  David 
build  the  temple  at  all,  because  he  had  made 
his  hands  so  bloody  in  those  wars.  It  seems 
that  God   Himself  did  not  like  those  wars, 


144 


THE  TRIAL  OF  EEV.  DAVID  SWING. 


and  He  let  Solomon  build  the  temple,  because 
He  wanted  a  man  of  peace  to  build  it,  whose 
bands  were  not  stained  with  blood. 

Now,  Mr.  Moderator  and  brethren,  I  come 
to  the  place  where  I  shall  point  out  to  you 
the  diflerence  between  the  prosecutor's  theo- 
logy and  my  own,  in  some  respects.  And  as 
he  justly  quoted,  yesterday,  the  aphorism 
from  Newman's  "Grammar  of  Assent,"  that 
there  are  times  when  "egoii-  m  is  modesty," 
I  shall  repeat  it  here,  because  I  do  not  wish 
to  pretend  that  anybody  holds  the  views  I 
shall  express  here  besides  myself.  I  shall  not 
pretend  that  they  are  accepted  or  welcome  in 
the  whole  presbyteijy.  They  may  be  a  weak- 
ness, and  hence  to  stand  by  them  alone  is  an 
egotism  that  is  modesty.  The  remarks  about 
to  be  offered  will  explain  my  position  as  to 
faith  and  infidelity  and  to  Old  Testament 
inspiration  and  to  the  call  for  the  ministry. 
My  idea  is  this  :  Prof.  Patton's  theology  all 
proceeds  from  God  as  a  simple  despot.  Mine 
from  God  as  a  reasonable  being.  By  Prof. 
Patton's  theology,  I  do  not  mean  the  Pres- 
byterian theology,  or  the  Calvinistic  theo- 
logy, it  is  infinitely  worse  than  both, — ^but  I 
mean  his  own  personal  theology,  as  he  has 
unfolded  it  since  he  came  to  this  city,  and, 
latterly,  in  this  trial.  One  of  the  eighteenth 
century  philosophers  said  the  universe  is  an 
enormous  will  rushing  into  life.  The  theo- 
logy of  the  prosecutor  of  this  case  is  nothing 
but  the  picture  of  an  enormous  power  rushing 
into  a  moral  world.  It  is  power;  it  is  force. 
You  dare  not  subject  his  Deity  to  any  ques- 
tion whatever.  As  Luther  said,  "It  is  the 
glory  of  human  faith  to  suppose  God  to  be 
just  wlien  he  damns  the  innocent." 

So  the  theology  of  my  friend  is  one  that 
does  nothing  but  look  down  to  earth  and  say, 
"God!  God!"  As  though  God  could  not  be 
thought  about,  or  prayed  to,  or  spoken  to. 
But  who  this  God  is,  how  He  acts,  upon  what 
basis,  he  dares  not  inquire,  because  it  would 
be  "rationalism"  if  he  did — he  so  fears  ra- 
tionalism. When,  therefore,  a  young  man 
comes  to  this  form  of  theology  and  humbly 
inquires  about  the  slaughter  of  the  Canaan- 
ites,  or  the  109th  psalm,  and  says,  "How  shall 
I  answer  Mr.  Proude  and  show  him  and  all 
the  bold  infidels  that  my  church  is  a  sensible, 
reasonable  church?"  the  answer  is,  "Go, 
young  man,  and  tell  Proude  that  he  was  fore- 
ordained to  be  damned!  Go!  and  if  you  raise 
such  an  inquiry  a^ain  you  will  soon  be  in  a 
similar  conditiun." 


Now,  I  hope  I  do  his  theology  no  injustice 
— I  have  studied  it  well  and  thought  over  it. 
This  is  his  method  with  regard  to  the  inspir- 
ation of  the  Old  Testament.  So  with  salva- 
tion by  faith.  You  dare  not  ask  what  faith 
is.  Whether  it  is  a  natural  or  moral  excel- 
lence that  has  induced  God  to  crown  it  with 
such  glory  in  the  New  Testament,  in  the 
Christian  religion.  Any  inquiry  on  this  point 
is  rationalism.  It  is  your  business  to  believe, 
and  there  terminates  youi  inquiry.  I  have 
read  it  all  over,  and  read  it  long. 

Now,  on  the  opposite.  I  believe  a  theology 
which  not  only  believes  that  God  is  a  sover- 
eign, but  that  he  is  a  reasonable  sovereign, 
and  that  beneath  all  his  commands  there  will, 
for  the  most  part,  be  some  beautiful  reason 
visible,  ever  unfolding  itself.  Faith,  there- 
fore, is  clothed  with  judicial  worth,  because 
it  possesses  such  an  intrinsic  worth  in  the 
mind  and  in  the  heart,  such  power  to 
carry  the  mind  forward,  to  cheer  up  the  heart 
in  dark  hours,  and  to  transform  us  into  the 
likeness  of  Jesus  Christ,  looking  out  and  see- 
ing this  faith  we  had.  He  saw  it  had  the 
power  to  take  the  whole  world  into  its  arms 
and  all  remodel  it;  therefore  He  said,  "By 
faith  ye  shall  be  saved."  He  did  not  go  forth 
as  a  tyrant  or  as  a  despot,  but  as  a  reasonable 
loving  Father  of  us  all. 

God  has  pronounced  intemperance  to  be  a 
curse.  No  drunkards  shall  inherit  the  king- 
dom. This  being  announced,  all  the  scienti- 
fic men  go  to  work  and  find  a  reason  for  this 
curse.  It  is  a  judicial  act,  and  hence  they 
seek  a  reason.  They  seek  it  in  the  mind,  in 
the  blood,  in  the  burnt-up  coatings  of  the 
stomach,  in  the  inflamed  brain,  in  the  loss  of 
money,  in  the  loss  of  mind,  in  the  ruin  of 
the  wife  and  the  children.  Yes,  God  having 
said  ''The  intemperate  man  shall  be  ban- 
ished," men  look  into  this  intemperance  to 
find  the  reason  of  this  banishment.  But  when 
God  pronounces  the  woe  upon  the  infidel,  you 
must  not  inquire  about  the  natural  drift  of 
this  infidelity.  That  is  rationalism!  You 
dare  not  ask  whether  it  wages  any  war  in  the 
soul  as  intemperance  docs  in  the  body ;  wheth- 
er it  closes  the  gate  of  a  moral  sense  and 
shuts  out  a  world  from  the  heart;  whether 
it  shuts  out  Christ  and  heaven  from  the  soul ; 
whether  it  be  a  natural  damnation  like  in- 
temperance as  well  as  a  judicial  one.  Oh ! 
no.  If  you  do  this,  you  will  be  arraigned 
before  the  presbytery  for  not  regarding  your 
ordination  vows. 


PROF.  SWING'S  ARGUMENT. 


145 


Well,  brethren,  if  mj-  ordination  vows 
impose  upon  me  any  obligation  to  live  a  life 
of  ignorance  and  stupidity,  destitute  of  all 
inquiry,  the  sooner  you  relieve  me  of  these 
ordination  vows  the  better. 

The  fact  that  intemperance  injures  men  by 
God's  decree  docs  not  debar  me  from  looking 
into  the  natural  operation  of  that  intemper- 
ance ;  and  the  fact  that  God  saves  a  soul  by 
faith,  and  condemns  a  soul  for  infidelity,  does 
not  debar  me  from  looking  into  the  natural 
quality  of  that  belief  and  that  unbelief.  But, 
according  to  the  theology  of  the  prosecutor, 
infidelity  may  be  a  virtue,  for  all  I  know, 
and  faith  may  be  a  vice.  All  he  knows  is 
that  God  denied  the  one  and  commanded  the 
other.  And  there  he  stops.  His  theology 
always  terminates  with  the  fact.  It  dare  not 
ever  ask  a  single  question.  It  is  just  "Be- 
lieve and  be  saved.  Believe  not  and  be 
damned."  That  is  all  there  is  of  it.  Hence, 
I  say  his  God  has  marched  right  through  his 
theology  as  a  force  only.  He  has  no  sweet 
reasonableness,  but  is  only  an  enormous  will 
rushing  out  like  a  hurricane  to  the  fields  of 
His  own  dear  children,  trampling  alike  over 
their  cradle  and  their  grave. 

Now  I  am  as  firm  a  believer  in  salvation 
by  faith  as  the  prosecutor  in  this  case,  only 
his  faith  is  but  a  despotic  command  from  the 
Almighty,  mine,  I  feel,  is  from  a  God,  all- 
wise,  unfolding  His  wisdom  to  His  children. 
Hence  my  faith  is  one  clothed  not  only  with 
good  works,  but  clothed  with  sense. 

This  dreadful  hostility  to  reason  has  robbed 
Prof.  Patton  of  almost  the  entire  world,  apart 
from  his  little  narrow  church  world. 

To  say  that  man  was  a  religious  being  be- 
fore Christianity,  and  that  religion  was  not 
forced  upon  man  as  it  might  be  forced  upon 
the  brute  world ;  that  it  was  demanded  by 
man's  nature,  and  was  a  flower  that  came 
naturally  right  up  out  of  his  heart,  is  some- 
thing that  greatly  angers  him.  Religion  is 
something  born  right  out  of  the  heart  be- 
cause man  saw  before  him  a  heaven  to  be 
gained  and  a  hell  to  be  shunned.  He  was  a 
moral  creature.  Prof.  Patton,  in  his  own  in- 
augural, says  a  "man  is  religious  at  bottom." 
He  ought  to  have  made  the  sentence  end  in 
"religious"  and  put  the  "at  bottom"  in  the 
beginning.     But  that  is  a  small  matter. 

He  says  there  is  no  fitness,  that  we  know 
of,  naturally,  between  the  soul  and  Christi- 
anity. God  came  in  the  days  of  Christ  and 
planted  Christianity  because  He  wanted  to. 


The  time  had  come  for  doing  it.  There  was 
nothing  in  man  to  suggest  any  such  kindness. 
There  was  nothing  in  the  human  family  to 
render  natural  such  a  gift  from  God.  The 
gift  of  Christianity  to  the  world  was  just  like 
giving  speech  to  a  corpse,  or  giving  wings  to 
a  clod,  a  pure  act  of  omnipotence.  Thus,  in 
the  theology  of  our  friend,  on  the  opposite, 
you  will  perceive  nothing  but  an  enormous 
will  that  explains  nothing.  It  is  a  great  fore- 
ordaining power,  destitute  alike  of  intelli- 
gence and  humanity. 

By  pondering  this  over,  you  will  find  what 
the  New  School  theology  is.  And  further- 
more, it  would  seem  that  this  enormous  will 
does  not  touch  the  world  anywhere  between 
Adam  and  Christ — anywhere,  scarcely:  for 
when  I  attempted  to  show  that  God  laid  the 
foundations  of  the  Christian  ministry  when 
He  made  man,  and  that,  as  He  set  Moses 
apart  for  a  law-giver,  and  Aaron  apart  for  a 
white-robed  priest,  and  He  set  David  apart 
for  a  king,  and  Daniel  apart  to  be  a  prophet, 
and  thus,  in  the  deeply  religious  nature  of 
His  children  laid  the  foundations  of  the  Chris- 
tian ministry,  for  that  differentiation  of  man 
which  Christ  afterward  so  reinforced  with 
the  truth  of  His  gospel  and  the  power  of  His 
cross,  our  prosecutor  absolutely  arraigns  me 
and  says  the  ministry  began  at  year  one  Anno 
Domini,  and  refers  me  to  his  Confession  of 
Faith. 

The  Christian  ministry,  or  the  ministry, 
began  at  the  advent.  That  is,  in  his  theology, 
after  4,000  years  had  passed — after  tens  of 
thousands  of  ministers  of  God's  own  religion 
had  ministered  at  the  altars,  from  Abel  to 
Samuel,  and  from  Samuel  to  the  very  day  of 
Christ,  then  God  came  and  withdrew  the 
ministry,  not  on  account  «f  any  custom  of 
his  church  or  of  mankind;  not  on  account  of 
any  desirableness  in  the  office  that  there 
should  be  a  division  of  labor ;  not  for  any 
reason  whatever,  visible  or  invisible,  but  just 
because  this  great  Being,  which  the  prose- 
cutor supposes  to  be  God,  so  desired — God  so 
wanted  it.  That  is  all.  God  so  compassed 
the  situation,  and  so  concluded  and  so  or- 
dained. 

This  is  the  theology  that  makes  infidels. 
Thus  God  is  separated  from  all  those  four 
thousand  years  between  Christ  and  Adam, 
and  is  waked  up,  at  last,  from  a  long  neglect, 
and  concludes  to  found  a  religious  ministry. 

Now,  although  the  prosecutor  made  the 
accused  out  to  be  an  infidel,  a  Brahmin,  and 


146 


THE  TKIAL  OF  EEV.  DAVID  SWING 


an  Evolutionist,  and  a  Sabellian,  and  a  Unit- 
arian, yet  the  "accused,"  ^vith  all  these  faults 
upon  him,  can  show  to  this  court  a  better 
view  of  Providence,  a  more  universal,  a  more 
cg.reful  and  delightful  Heavenly  Father  than 
the  prosecutor  can  present. 

The  God  of  my  friend  seems  only  to  come 
to  this  world  once  in  a  while,  and  then  as  a 
clap  of  thunder  strikes  it,  and  then  with- 
draws again  for  a  thousand  years. 

His  Creator  came  suddenly,  and  laid  down 
Christianity  as  though  in  a  night.  He  had 
not  been  preparing  for  it  at  all  in  those  four 
thousand  years.  He  suddenly  invented  the 
ministry  also,  and  introduced  it  for  the  first 
time  at  the  advent  of  the  Saviour.  "See  Con- 
fession of  Faith,"  he  says — whereas  my 
Providence  has  been  holding  and  building 
up  that  ministry  for  six  thousand  years, 
right  along,  without  any  intermission — no 
rest.  When  he  gave  man  a  religious  nature, 
when  he  placed  heaven  and  hell  before  him, 
and  when  he  called  the  sons  of  Levi  to  the 
altar,  and  decorated  them  in  white,  spotless 
robes,  this  Providence,  which  I  believe  in, 
had  been  all  along,  from  the  earliest  morn- 
ing of  earth,  right  close  by  His  people  build- 
ing up  this  holy  ministry,  in  whose  name 
we  came  here  to-day,  I  trust. 

And  now,  coming  to  our  century,  the 
prosecutor  holds  to  the  idea  of  an  imperfect 
Providence,  and  then,  for  the  most  part,  com- 
ing to  his  church. 

His  own  witnesses  here,  Mr.  Goudy  and 
Mr.  Miller,  join  with  him  in  separating  God 
from  such  beings  as  Lincoln  and  Washing- 
ton, and  indeed  from  all  the  human  march- 
ing host,  and  in  employing  God  only  in  look- 
ing up  young  men  for  theological  seminaries 
in  our  own  church,  thus  giving  us  the  world 
of  the  atheist,  except  so  far  as  the  church  is 
concerned.  But  in  the  theology  of  our  friend, 
if  theology  that  can  be  called  which  has 
everything  in  it  except  God,  the  providence 
of  the  Almighty  must  undergo  a  still  more 
painful  limitation.  I  do  not  mean  he  is 
conscious  of  this,  I  am  speaking  only  of 
his  theology. 

We  know  this  :  That  the  prosecutor  will 
deny  that  God  could  call  any  heterodox 
clergyman  to  the  pulpit.  The  advantage  of 
having  the  Deity  to  superintend  this  work 
must  lie  in  his  supreme  opportunity  for 
knowing  the  true  theology  and  the  pure 
heart.  Hence,  we  cannot  suppose  God  calls 
a  heterodox  minister  to  the  pulpit.     Hence 


all  heterodox  clergyaien  iiust  be  set  aside 
from  the  care  of  God's  special  providence. 
If  in  the  ministry,  they  must  come  in  only 
as  Sumner  came  to  his  oflace,  or  Wilberforce 
to  his. 

So  the  professor  has  limited  God's  special 
providence,  to  only  the  orthodox  clergy ;  and 
when  he  proved  not  long  ago,  in  his  paper, 
that  he  who  rejects  infant  baptism,  is  not  or- 
thodox, you  see  how  he  is  limiting  the  care 
of  God  in  this  direction.  And  thus  we  must 
cast  away  from  God's  special  love  and  call 
all  those  who  hold  not  our  standards. 

And  then,  furthermore,'  he  excludes  all 
elders  as  having  never  been  called  to  this 
holy  work;  excluding  such  men  as  Geo. 
H.  Stuart,  and  J.  Y.  Farwell ;  and  all 
women  such  as  Miss  Smiley ;  and  all  re- 
vivalists such  as  Moody,  for  I  believe  he 
is  not  an  ordained  minister.  And  thus  we 
have  him  narrowing  down  the  providence  of 
God,  until  we  find,  in  looking  around  here 
and  there,  a  few  clergymen  left  in  Zion's 
great  church  to  be  chosen  by  the  Almighty. 
My  friends,  when  I  look  upon  such  men  as 
Sumner  and  Burke  and  William  Wirt  and 
Wilberforce,  and  feel  that  they  came  into 
being  only  by  an  ordinary  providence  or  else 
through  God's  neglect,  because  those  elders 
did  not  know  whether  Mr.  Lincoln  was 
called  or  not, — he  came,  perhaps,  by  God's 
neglect, — and  when  I  look  upon  some  clergy- 
men, and  am  told  that  these  clergymen  came 
by  some  miraculous  method,  let  us  pray  that 
God  may  return  to  an  ordinary  providence 
hereafter. 

Now,  my  brethren,  I  have  but  two  re- 
marks to  make,  and  one  is  this :  The  pros- 
ecutor called  your  attention  to  Penelope, 
who  in  the  daytime  wove  her  woof  and  in 
the  night  time  unraveled  it.  I  thanJ"  Win  for 
thus  recalling  this,  for  it  has  been  several 
years  since  I  have  read  the  Odyssey.  He  is 
the  greatest  Penelope  of  all  in  this  matter, 
for  whereas,  my  brethren,  on  one  day  he 
proved  to  you,  in  a  whole  day's  long  argu- 
ment, that  I  did  not  believe  in  hell,  he 
yesterday  showed  you  that  I  held  a  religion 
without  hope — a  religion  of  good  works,  he 
said.  Where  can  you  find  hope  in  that.  Now 
when  you  come  to  condemn  me  I  don't 
want  you  to  condemn  me  for  holding  both  a 
religion  without  hell  and  without  hope.  Take 
one  or  the  other.  Again  he  proved  to  you, 
by  a  long  argument,  that  a  Sabellian  is  a 
man,   who  fully  identifies  Jesus  Christ  with 


EEV.  MR.  NOYES'  ARGUMENT. 


147 


God.  The  truth  is,  a  Ssihellian  is,  "par  excel- 
lence^ a  believer  in  the  deity  of  Jesus  Christ. 
In  the  theology  of  Sabellians,  Jesus  Christ  is 
nothing  else  than  the  Great  Father,  having 
for  the  moment  become  the  Mediator,  and 
for  the  moment  having  become  the  Holy 
Spirit.  Thus  the  theory  of  Sabellius  is  the 
theory  above  all  others  that  makes  Jesus 
Christ  the  very  God.  Having  toiled  all  that 
day  to  show  that  I  was  a  Subellian,  he  toiled 
all  the  next  day  to  show  that  I  was  a  Unitar- 
ian— that  religion  which  of  all  others  separ- 
ates Jesus  Christ  from  God. 

And  now,  my  brethren,  I  want  you,  when 
you  come  to  make  up  your  verdict,  not  to 
make  me  both  of  these  characters.  I  could 
bear  it  to  be  either,  perhaps,  but  I  could  not 
bear  to  be  both. 


After  Prof.  Swing  had  concluded  his  re- 
marks, his  counsel  resumed  his  argument. 

ARGUMENT  OF  THE  COUNSEL  FOR  THE 
DEFENDANT. 
(Continued.) 
Mr.  Moderator. — "When  I  felt  compelled, 
on  yesterday  afternoon,  to  ask  for  an  ad- 
journment, being  unable  to  proceed  further 
with  my  remarks,  it  will  be  remembered  that 
I  had  reached  and  spoken  upon  the  third  speci- 
fication in  this  indictment.  Without  un- 
dertaking this  afternoon,  to  go  over  these 
specifications  in  their  order,  I  shall  ask  atten- 
tion, first,  in  the  remarks  that  I  may  be  able 
to  ofier,  to  the  fifth  specification,  which 
asserts  that  the  defendant  in  this  |case 
omits  to  preach  the  doctrines  commonly 
called  evangelical.  I  will  read  the  speci- 
fication. 

Being  a  minister  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  and  preaching  regularly  to  the 
Fourth  Presbyterian  Church  of  this  city,  he 
has  omitted  to  preach,  in  his  sermons,  the 
doctrines  commonly  known  as  evangelical — 
that  is  to  say,  in  particular,  he  omits  to 
preach  or  teach  one  or  more  of  the  doctrines 
indicated  in  the  following  statements  of 
Scripture,  namely,  that  Christ  is  a  "  propiti- 
ation for  our  sins,"  that  we  have  "  redemp- 
tion through  His  blood,"  that  we  are  "justi- 
fied by  faith,"  that  "  there  is  no  other  name 
under  heaven  given  among  men  whereby  we 
may  be  saved."  That  Jesus  is  "equal  with 
God,"  and  is  "  God  manifest  in  the  flesh  ?'' 
that  "all  Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of 
God,"  and  that  "the  wicked  shall  go  away 
into  everlasting  punishment. 

To  say  that  a  minister  in  the  Presbyterian 
Church   omits  to  preach  or  teach  the  doc- 


trines that  are  there  set  forth,  is,  as  you  will 
all  agree,  to  bring  a  very  serious  accusation 
against  him  ;  and  if  I  supposed  that  the  de- 
fendant in  this  case  were  guilty  of  the  things 
alleged  in  this  specification,  I  certainly 
should  not  be  standing  here  to-day  to  under- 
take to  plead  his  cause,  or  to  correct  gross 
mistakes  and  misrepresentations  concerning 
the  views  which  he  holds  and  teaches.  It  is 
only  because  I  believe  and  know  and  can 
prove,  that  the  doctrines  which  are  here  set 
forth  in  Scriptural  phrases,  are  preached  and 
taught  by  him,  that  I  am  not  only  willing, 
but  count  it  a  privilege  and  an  honor,  to 
stand  here  and  plead  his  cause  before  you. 
This  specification,  as  you  have  already  heard, 
asserts  that  the  defendant  omits  to  preach 
these  doctrines.  If  we  are  to  understand  by 
this  that  he  omits,  or  fails,  to  teach  these 
doctrines,  by  way  of  making  set  and  formal 
discourses  upon  each  of  them,  I  readily  ad- 
mit that  that  is  true,  so  far  as  concerns  the 
documentary  evidence  which  is  before  this 
court ;  but  if  the  specification  means  that 
Prof.  Swing  has  not  interwoven  all  these 
subjects  into  his  sermons,  and  taught  the 
truth  concerning  them ;  then  the  charge  is 
utterly  denied  ;  and  by  the  testimony  which 
has  already  been  spread  out  before  this  court, 
from  the  lips  of  living  witnesses,  that  charge, 
so  defined,  has  been  proved  to  be  baseless  ; 
and,  as  I  shall  be  able  presently  to  show,  can 
be  abundantly  proved  to  be  baseless  from  the 
very  sermons,  garbled  portions  of  which  have 
been  read  in  your  hearing,  and  by  which  the 
prosecutor  has  attempted  to  prove  that  Prof. 
Swing  does  not  teach  these  doctrines. 

The  prosecutor  in  all  his  arguments  seems 
to  have  gone  upon  the  supposition  that  Prof, 
Swing's  language,  is  the  language  of  heretics ; 
unless  we  grant  him  the  benefit  of  the  as- 
sumption that  he  is  a  Presbyterian.  "Well,  I 
think  the  most  of  the  members  of  this  court 
will  be  ready  at  the  outset  to  grant  him  the 
poor  benefit  of  such  an  assumption,  namely 
that  he  is  a  Presbyterian.  I  think  that  that 
assumption  will  be  permitted  to  stand  until 
it  is  clearly  demonstrated  that  it  is  not  true. 
Surely  the  respondent  has  a  right  to  this  as- 
sumption. 

One  of  the  prosecutor's  modes  of  argam^^nt 
would  seem  to  indicate  that  he  had  j  erceived, 
the  weakness  of  his  cause.  At  the  ou  set  he 
made  the  term  ''Evangelical"  a  t(Bt  word. 
He  assumes  in  specification  seventeenth  that 
the  evangelical  &QX1SQ  of  terms  is  the  sian  lard  by 


148 


THE  TEIAL  OF  SET.  DAVTD  SWEfG. 


vjiich  tc  judee  tre  language  <rf  the  defend- 
in;  in  this  catse.  The  language  is  asstLmed 
also  in  soecinc&aons  fourth  and  fifth.  Lei  me 
read  specincadon  seTenteettth :  "  In  the  ser- 
moais  afi»esaid,  he  employs  the  words  used  to 
indieate  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible  in  an  on- 
Boipiur*!  soise,  and  in  a  sense  different  from 
that  in  whidi  they  are  used  by  the  evangeli- 
cal chnrches  in  goieral,  and  the  Presbyteriin 
chnreh  in  partieaiar  ;  mat  is  to  saj,  that  he 
Eo  lEes  ^dh  -Tords  as  '*  regeneratjom," 
"  convezsMHi,"  "  wpoitance,"  "  IHTine," 
"jostificadan,"  »*  new  heart,"  "  salTatiom^" 
"  Savioiir."  Without  stoj^iing  to  object  to 
the/orat  <^  tills  specifieadon  forther  duua  to 
rrfer  to  the  {»indfdes  which  I  stated  <m  jes- 
today,  I  shall  ask  yoa  presently  to  oondder 
how  miidb  basis  there  is  for  mating  sodh 
assati<ns  as  are  hes%  pot  forth  oraicaiiing 
the  defoidant.  I  a^s:  yoa  to  nodce  that  eon- 
fpming  ThU  specification,  and  specificatiims 
like  to  this  which  may  be  found  in  this  in- 
dicanait,  the  arfendant  meets  the  jtfvgecntor 
on  his  own  ground.  In  proof  of  this,  I  re^- 
yoQ  to  Prof.  Swing's  language,  foond  in  his 
DedanUion,  page  313.  Xew  Edition  Truths 
for  To-Dtay  He  there  says :  -•  I  ad- 
mit the  extracts  from  sermons  and  writings^ 
hot  I  would  ask  the  Presbytery  to  omsida' 
the  oitire  e^ays  '* — ^whidi  we  -pro^oee  to  do 

—  •  ■    -  •s-'h  le  diseomses  from  which  the  ex- 

-de.  I  avow  mysdf  to  be  what, 
c-r:  -T  :_r  late  union,  was  styled  a  2few 
Schcvl  Presbyterian,  and  dem^  '"ip'ff  to  hmxe 
c:  -'       ^dth  taufcf  dke  JWiyfical 

C-  -  yta  of    the   denominaiicm 

-^cted." 

.  rction  also,  while  I  am 

Tt  .         ::_  this  declaiadon,  call  your  at- 

la:  Prof.  Swing  says  with  refe?- 

:  _-e  .that  has  been  continBally 

—  ..Ir  ._  r  :  _  ~  :n  the  coarse  of  the ppcjse- 
c_::r  ;     :_    ii": — -.^z   he  is    a  XTratarian. 


.-  and  miott,  and 

17.  in  the  pulpits  of 

st-like  lives  of  thoo- 

-  -      :    that  dotom- 

Mv  mind  and 

■    i*  in  show- 

I   am 


■Pj-"— 

STtTrhr-i 

- 

:'sct. 

is 

an  idea  not  to  be 

^V    -   - 

- 

- 

deer^ 

.1  dass  who 
"    — ^^take. 

T 

-  ^^  this 

--5^ 

V- 

^    r.    ' 

tile.;. 

dise 
of  a 

i<>gy.  »• 
is  not  : 

'^''j 

-"* 

Tkat,  it  would 
mind  oi  th-^  prosecntc-r 
it  does  not  satisfy  h 
ori§iMal    demand 
ground    which 
the  erangelieal  § 
be  attempts  to    .' 
terms     ranploye-^    :_ 
also    used     by     Unit 
Arminians,     and     s-o 
thai  these  terms   are 
thev  ST  ~ 


Bt:t 


s    m^'.,    he '  shifrr 


V^  -^--.-z^ 


r- 


Bv   t: 


euuigdiail  phrase. 

might,  with  perfT  :   -77  -  ^^  — ^ 

in^ared  projActi  :   :  2  7    tlis 

jmediod,    who    c: 

;  body,  €x  of  anj  r 

■  ehurdi  to  which  ~  _  -_1 
!ccald  stand?  B_  i 
;  own  tet,  that  o: 

p«eed  by  him--  -  - 

drawn,  and  ^ 
;<Hi  which  the ---  r 

■  has  removed  this  :  _ 
thathehimi^  ':'  -  :_ir 
by  it,  what  i  :^  tie 
next  great : :  i 
uptmto  wi:7 

that  die  aec 

tarosjinan::: —  _ .    --  -.    -. -  — 

as,  "  The  Deity  of  Christ :"  *•  Christ  is  God. :' 
tains  whidi  are  not  in  the  Bible,  which  are 
not  in  the  Gonfesdon  of  Paith,  and  which  are 
rarely  teed,  as  I  Tenture  to  say,  by  the  minis- 
tas  oi  this  body.  If  the  accused  speaks  of  in- 
spirationar  ngenciatiop,anda  new  heart,  and 
the  like^  Jiis  will  not  answer,  even  thn^h 
the  defendant  declares,  as  he  has  dirtinrtly 
declared  be£are  this  body,  that  he  UBes  these 


KEY.  MR.  NOTES'  ARGUMENT. 


149 


old  Bible  terms  in   their  evangelical   sense. 
In   our   innocence  we    have    'supposed  that 
Bible  preaching  was  Gospel  preaching,  but 
evidently  it  is  not  so,  according  to  the  argu- 
ment that  we  have  heard  in  this  court      It  is 
heretical,  it  is  Unitarianism,  unless   indeed 
the  preacher  shall  use  these  phrases   which 
the  prosecutor  insists  shall  be  the  test  words 
by   which   to    ascertain    the    orthodoxy  or 
heterodoxy  of  a  Presbyterian  minister.      He 
insists    upon   these  terms,   and  these   terms 
are    not    found    in    the    Bible.     Hence  the 
Bible    is   a  Unitarian    book !       "Well   may 
the      Unitarians     thank      the      prosecutor 
for   coming    to   their     help   in   his  plea  by 
declaring   that   they  use  evangelical  terms. 
Now,  if  they  will  only  adopt  Prof.   Patton's 
new  terms,  as  some  of  them   probably  would 
have   no   hesitation   or  difficulty   in   doing, 
they  may  claim  him  as  in   agreement  with 
them.     How,  then,  would  this  logic  sound  ? 
Prof.  Patton  speaks  of  the  Deity  of  Christ. 
Sabellius  believed   in   the  Deity  of  Christ, 
therefore  Prof.  Patton  is  a  Sabellian.    This  is 
the   logic,  precisely  this,  which    he   applies 
to  Prof.  Swing.      Again  the  prosecutor  com- 
ments on  certain  language  of  the  respondent 
as  if  he  understood  it  perfectly,  without  any 
possibility  of  mistake  or  error.     He  can  see 
heresy    in    it.      There   is   no   doubt   in   his 
mind  that  it  is   there;  but   still,   conscious 
that  he  is  torturing  that  language,   and  per- 
haps  having  his  pity  awakened  as  he  sees  it 
writhe   in  his  logical  machine,  and  antici- 
pating also,  the  evangelical  sense  which  we 
may  put  upon  it,  he  takes  another  turn  and 
appears  before  this  body  in  the  character  of 
one  who  cannot  understand  the  language  at 
all.     Now,  I  submit  that  the  fact  that  the 
prosecutor  does  not  understand  certain  lan- 
guage used  by  the  defendant,  does  not  prove 
that  his  regular  hearers  do  not  understand 
him.    Who  are  the  most  likely  to  understand 
him?  "Who  are  the  best  interpreters  ot  his 
words  as  they  are  spoken  from  Sabbath  to 
Sabbath  ?    Certainly  we  should  all  agree,  his 
regular  hearers  ;    his  elders  who  have  been 
before  you  here,  and  upon  the  witness  stand 
have  testified,  one  and  all,  and  consistently 
with   themselves,   to  the   sound  evangelical 
preaching  which  they  have  been  accustom- 
ed always  to  hear  from  their  pastor  during 
all  the  years  of  his  ministry  among   them. 
These   elders   were   men     whose   theological 
knowledge,  as  you  all  remember,  drew  from 
the  prosecutor  a  compliment. 


Let  us  ask  what  is  the  prosecutor's  next 
display  of  art  ?  To  compliment  these  elders 
in  his  argument?  By  no  means.  Rather  to 
discard  their  testimony  anu  declare  it  worth- 
less, upon  two  grounds:  one  that  they  are 
untrained  in  the  dislinctions  of  theology, 
and  the  other  that  they  are  prejudiced  ;  that 
they  have  a  personal  interest  in  this  prose- 
cution ;  and  so  deep  and  personal  an  interest 
in  it  as  to  make  them  incompetent  witnesses. 
Hence  he  would  make  it  appear  to  this  body 
that  the  pastor  had  beguiled  these  elders 
with  this  evangelical  and  biblical  language, 
all  of  which  had  been  used  in  a  Pickwickian 
sense.  Oh,  what  is  our  Bible  to  be  worth  if 
such  principles  of  criticism  are  to  be  applied 
to  it  I  A  pious-hearted  man  reads  in  his  Bi- 
ble words,  such  as  those  which  are  embodied 
in  specification  five,  or  such  as  these :  "The 
Son  of  man  is  Lord  of  the  Sabbath  ;  "Jesus 
Christ  came  into  the  world  to  save  sinners." 
"We  believe  and  are  sure  that  thou  art 
the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God,"  and 
he  thinks  of  this  argument  of  the  prosecutor 
and  says  :  "What  can  all  this  mean  ?  Uni- 
tarians and  Sabellians  use  just  this  evangel- 
ical language,  and  therefore  this  must  be" — 
there  is  no  escape  from  the  conclusion — 
"This  must  be  a  heretical  book." 

Having  followed  in  this  general  way,  or 
taken  up  some  of  the  prominent  points  that 
were  put  before  you  in  the  argument  of  the 
prosecutor ;  having  called  to  your  attention 
some  of  the  leading  moves — if  I  may  so 
speak  of  them — which  he  took  in  the  con- 
duct of  that  argument,  it  would  seem  fair  to 
conclude  that  he  must  have  felt  hard  pressed 
by  the  evidence  which  was  given  by  the  el- 
ders of  the  Fourth  Church,  or  he  would 
never  have  so  manipulated  the  word  "evan- 
gelical." This  court  will  readily  detect  the 
art  of  the  magician,  in  whose  skillful  hands 
not  only  the  sermons  of  our  preachers  but 
even  our  very  Bibles  lose  their  meaning  and 
their  power  to  save  souls. 

The  skill  which  the  prosecutor  has  dis- 
played in  so  torturing  language  as  to  empty 
it  wholly  of  it5  honest  meaning,  has,  I  be- 
lieve, never  been  surpassed,  and  has  never 
been  equaled  but  once.  That  was  about  the 
year  1787.  We  are  told  that  at  that  time  the 
American  Federalists  sought  the  friendship 
of  British  statesmen.  Between  these  par- 
ties there  was  a  common  language,  which 
offered  dangerous  facilities  for  the  desired 
alliance.     How  should  it  be  prevented  ?    A 


150 


THE  TKIAL  OF  KEY.  DAVID  SWING. 


certain  whimsical  gentleman,  by  the  name 
of  Mr.  Thornton,  proved  himself  to  be 
equal  to  the  occasion.  He  proposed  the 
admirable  scheme  of  putting  the  common 
language  into  masquerade  by  spelling  it  pho- 
netically and  by  printing  the  letters  upside 
down.  So  the  prosecutor,  seeing  the  com- 
mon evangelical  language  between  Prof. 
Swing  and  his  Presbyterian  brethren,  pro- 
poses to  make  nonsense  of  their  good  old 
Bible  terms,  and  turn  upside  down  their 
Gospel  meaning.  But  let  us  cling  to  that 
evangelical  sense  and  keep  it  constantly  in 
mind.  Let  me  ask  you  in  its  light  to  give 
attention  now  to  the  documentary  evidence 
■which  will  disprove  the  charges  of  this  in- 
dictment. 

Upon  the  subjects  of  regeneration  or  a 
new  heart,  and  conversion,  let  me  ask  your 
attention  to  a  sermon  on  "The  "World's 
Great  Need,"  page  47  : 

It  is  not  worth  while,  therefore,  to  quar- 
rel with  the  Bible  when  it  says,  "I  was 
born  in  iniquity;"  "the  heart  is  deceitful ;" 
"the  heart  is  desperately  wicked  :"  and 
"man  must  be  born  again."  The  conspicu- 
ousness  of  Christ,  of  Paul,  of  Penn,  of  the 
great  Elliott  among  the  Indians,  shows  that 
the  Bible  is  only  a  picture  of  human  life, 
and  that  men  do  need  to  be  born  again. 

You  will  readily  imagine  the  answer  in 
advance,  which  the  prosecutor  will  make  to 
this  language.  He  will  say  that  it  is  used  in 
a  Unitarian  or  in  an  unevangelical — that  is, 
in  a  disingenuous  and  dishonest  sense.  But 
let  us  attend  to  the  words  themselves  : 

It  was  the  effort  of  the  old  chemists  to 
turn  all  things  into  gold,  but  the  old  theolo- 
gians seemed  to  have  possessed  the  faculty  of 
changing  gold  into  all  things  else  ;  and  tak- 
ing a  pure,  priceless  truth  from  the  Bible 
were  wont,  unconscious  of  its  worth,  to  join 
it  to  their  amalgam  and  then  emerge  with  a 
poor  oroid — their  very  faces  meanwhile  cry- 
ing out  the  old  "  Eureka."  With  these  one 
may  dispute,  but  as  for  the  simple  words  of 
the  Bible,  they  are  the  picture  of  the  world's 
facts.  They  are  the  mirror  which  reflects 
back  to  us  nothing  but  our  face  with  no  de- 
formity or  charm  left  out.  Those  words  are 
deeply  written  on  all  the  generations  and 
their  meaning  is  only  too  vivid.  It  makes 
the  heart  and  the  head  to  ache.  Let  us  con- 
fess that  one  of  the  most  prominent  facts  of 
society,  is  its  moral  weakness,  its  depravity. 
It  ought  to  be  "  born  again." 

I  will  read  also  on  the  48th  page: 

This  sentiment  is  not  true  to  the  letter  ; 
but  it  shows  what  Christ  meant  when  he  said, 
"  Ye  must  be  born  again."  He  meant  that 
the  soul  must  be  hurled  into  being  the  second 
time.     Its  first  life  was  a  failure.     It  ought 


to  be  reborn  so  that  a  new  genius — a  new 
drift  might  be  possible.  Oh  1  what  a  vast 
change  is  here  indicated — a  change  in  the 
deptlis  of  our  nature — a  tearing  down  and 
rebuilding  of  the  very  soul.  Now  the  world's 
greatest /rtc^  being  its  degradation,  its  great- 
est ivant  is  to  be  expressed  by  the  word  "  re- 
creation "  or  "  re-born."  This  is  the  world's 
great  want.  It  is  its  greatest  want — this  re-, 
construction  of  the  human  soul  so  that  it  will 
no  longer  love  to  lie,  nor  cheat,  nor  sin  in  any 
form,  but  will  love  God,  and  all  moral  beauty. 
There  are  several  christian  sects  that  do 
not  sufficiently  magnify  this  idea  of  conver- 
sion, or  new  life.  They  believe  in  it,  but  do 
not  make  it  the  great  central  thought  of 
their  teaching.  With  the  Methodists,  and 
the  Presbyterians,  and  their  kindred  schools, 
the  first  elfort  is  to  help  convert  men,  and 
hence  their  great  question  for  the  candidate 
for  membership  is.  Do  you  feelthat  you  have 
undergone  a  change  of  heart  ?  Do  you  hate 
sin?  Do  you  love  holiness?  And  persons 
enter  the  church,  or  remain  out,  according 
to  the  responses  to  these  inquiries.  It  mat- 
ters not  if  some  assert  a  change  who  have 
really  met  with  none,  and  if  some  assert  a 
falsehood  knowingly.  The  questions  are  ex- 
actly in  the  line  of  the  world's  reform; 
they  are  the  great  questions  to  be  asked,  and 
hence  the  religion  that  mosv  patiently  asks 
them,  and  most  lovingly  seeks  aflirmative 
answers,  will  always  secure  better  results 
than  a  church  that  passes  them  by  in  silence, 
and  assumes  that  all  is  well  in  the  soul. 

Mr.  McLeod. — What  sermon  is  that? 

liev.  Mr.  Noyes. — The  48th  page. 

Rev.  Mr.  McLeod. — Some  of  us  hav'nt  the 
book.     What  sermon  is  it  ? 

Rev.  Mr.  iVoyes.— "  The  World's  Great 
Need."  I  am  assuming.  Brethren  of  the 
Presbytery,  that  you  are  able  to  understand 
these  words  without  note  or  comment  from 
me,  and  hence  I  submit  them  for  the  most 
part  without  any  such  note  or  comment,  and 
if  they  are  heterodox,  if  they  teach  false 
doctrines,  you,  I  believe,  will  be  able  to  dis- 
cover them  without  any  help  from  me  or 
from  the  prosecutor.     I  will  read  : 

The  perpetual  effort  to  build  up  a  new  spir- 
itual life,  the  unchanging  conviction  that 
soul  needs  a  profound  reform  now,  and  the 
accompanying  belief  that  such  a  new  drift 
of  being  may  be  found  by  the  heart,  has  all 
the  advantage  to  be  found  in  all  direct  eflbrt 
toward  a  result.  It  has  counted  wonderfully 
in  the  race  of  usefulness  that  the  Methodists, 
for  example,  have  for  one  hundred  years, 
turned  their  longings  and  efforts  towards  the 
immediate  reconstruction  of  the  human 
spirit.  In  some  of  the  villages  of  Persia 
there  is  to-day  a  sudden  and  vast  reform 
taking  place  under  the  mission  banners  in 
the  name  of  the  actual  pursuit  of  a  regener- 
ate heart.  What  men  seek,  they  find.  Only 
that  gate  opens  at  which  men  knock. 


EEV.  ME.  NOTES'  AKGUMENT. 


151 


It  is  useless  to  reply,  "  "We  do  not  believe 
in  a  miraculous  conversion  of  the  soul,  but 
only  in  a  conversion  brought  about  by  steady 
will-power,  hymns,  and  prayer."  It  is  use- 
less to  reply  in  any  such  way  as  this  or  in 
any  of  these  ways,  for  it  is  of  a  change  of 
heart  only,  I  speak.  I  have  said  nothing 
about  the  agent  in  the  new  creation.  The 
pure  rationalists  believe  in  a  changed  heart, 
and  would  seem  bound  therefore  to  make 
this  new  heart  a  vital  thing  in  their  church 
life  ;  for  it  is  the  world's  greatest  want ;  its 
greatest  longing,  its  only  hope.  Some  or- 
thodox sects  pursue  with  more  zeal  this  one 
object — the  transformation  of  the  heart — and 
hence  seem  to  be  more  in  the  path  of  the 
highest  human  duty — more  fully  in  the  path 
of  reform. 

Twenty-first  page — "  Influence  of  Democ- 
racy on  Christian  Doctrine."      I  read  : 

Christianity  silently  points  to  Jesus  Christ. 
Pass  it  not  by.  Oh  !  may  this  generation, 
while  it  is  passing  along,  number  among  its 
transformations  the  transformation  of  your 
hearts  into  the  image  of  the  Saviour !  that 
when  after  a  few  years  it  shall  have  strewn 
all  your  bodies  like  autumn  leaves  upon 
the  earth,  it  may  waft  your  spirits  redeemed 
and  sanctified  back  to  your  Maker. 

These  words  do  not  seem  to  confound  the 
distinction  between  redemption  and  sanctifi- 
cation.  I  ask  you  to  hear  some  passages 
from  these  sermons  in  regard  to  salvation 
by  Christ,  and  in  regard  to  the  person  of 
Christ,  upon  page  52 : 

The  moment  you  declare  Christ  only  a 
human  being  you  have  weakened  His  influ- 
ence upon  the  soul.  The  light  and  warmth 
are  eclipsed  and  the  poor  soul  gropes  about 
and  tries  to  find  in  civilization  a  power  de- 
nied it  in  the  realm  of  the  divine  and  the 
infinite.  To  part  with  ignorance,  let  us  go 
to  the  learned.  To  part  with  sin,  let  us  go 
to  the  presence  of  the  holy.  Mr.  Hepworth 
excites  hope — 

I  should  say  that  this  sermon  was  preach- 
ed not  long  after  Mr.  Hepworth  withdrew 
from  the  Unitarian  denomination,  and  hence 
the  significance  of  the  reference  to  him. 

Mr.  Hepworth  excites  hope  only  in  this, 
that  he  is  kindling  a  little  better  central 
6un  for  his  heart — has  dechxred  Christ  to  be 
divine  above  other  measure  of  divinity  be- 
lieved in  by  many  of  his  sect.  He  redoubles 
the  radiance  and  the  warmth  of  that  charac- 
ter that  has  always  shone  in  rejuvenating  and 
converting  power  upon  the  heart.  Men 
looking  upon  civilization,  or  culture  only, 
may  not  be  reborn  in  spirit,  but  looking  up- 
on the  divine  Christ  in  love,  other  souls  are 
afi'ected  by  the  holiness  and  immortal  life  in 
the  great  vision.  Instead  of  man's  revolv- 
ing around  humanity,  Mr.  Hepworth  invites 
him  to  revolve  about  the  Divine.  It  is  a 
etep  upward,  but  not  an  espousal  of  ortho- 
doxy, not  even   a   departure    from  the   old 


Unitarian  creed.  To  preach  fully  his  gently 
orthodox  ideas,  it  seemed  not  necessary  to 
withdraw  from  associations  long  and  sa- 
cred ;  able  in  themselves  to  clothe  his  words 
with  power ;  for  the  creed  of  his  de- 
nomination embraces  his  ideas  in  its  grand- 
est books,  and  many  are  the  hearts  in  hi9 
society  that  are  willing  that  the  soul  of 
Channing  should  come  back  to  the  half  des- 
olate home.  I  feel  that  there  are  thousands 
in  the  Unitarian  body  who  are  willing,  even 
anxious,  to  have  a  common  fallible  man 
plucked  from  the  center  of  their  system  and 
to  see  replaced  there  the  Divine  Saviour, 
drawing  all  hearts  by  His  love  and  heavenly 
attributes.  The  world  will  sooner  or  later 
be  compelled  to  go  to  the  Divine  presetice,  not 
to  human  presence,  for  its  new  heart.  Man- 
kind has  not  holiness  enough  to  entice  any 
heart  from  its  sins  ;  has  not  love  enough  to 
persuade,  nor  power  enough  to  alarm.  It  is 
the  conception  of  a?i  ever  present  God;  It  is  the 
sublime  Diviyiity  of  Jesus  ;  it  is  communion 
with  those  characters ;  it  is  a  belief  in  the 
infinite  love,  and  power  and  justice,  and  in 
the  all-pervading  presence  of  Deity  that  can 
give  to  this  world  noble,  converted  hearts, 
and  can  bear  earth  along  towards  the  new 
birth,  the  new  genius  of  human  life. 

And  now  to  all  this  language  the  answer 
will  doubtless  be  that  it  is  used  simply  in  a 
Pickwickian  sense. 

Rev,  N.  Barrett. — I  have  been  asked  if 
there  is  anything  in  reference  to  the  Holy 
Spirit.     Please  read  it  if  there  is. 

Rev.  Mr.  Noyes. — I  will  come  to  it  as  I  go 
along.  I  must  follow  my  references.  If 
this  Presbytery  wants  evidence  other  than 
that  which  has  been  given  by  living  wit- 
nesses as  regards  the  belief  of  the  defendant 
upon  the  character  and  person  of  Christ,  I 
think  the  passages  which  I  have  read  will 
fully  satisfy  their  minds  upon  that  doctrine  ; 
and  so,  I  will  next  read  some  statements 
which  are  found  in  these  sermons  upon  the 
subject  of  Salvation  by  Christ — the  sermon 
upon  Salvation  and  Morality,  page  102 : 

In  this  shadow  realm  we  would  not  wish 
to  throw  down  the  exact  response  that  "  He 
that  believes  "  shall  safely  pass  the  mysteri- 
ous bourne  ;  for  faith  is  such  a  broad,  indefin- 
able word  that  to  substitute  it  for  the  term 
salvatiun  would  be  to  leave  us  still  in  the  air 
obscure.  "Faith  in  Christ"  would  be  a 
phrase  still  indefinite,  for  not  only  has  faith 
many  forms,  but  many  forms  also  attach  to 
the  person  of  Christ.  He  was  a  sacrifice,  but 
sacrifice  has  many  significations.  He  was  an 
exam]ile.  He  was  a  mediator.  He  was  the 
unfolding  of  the  Divine  Image.  Faith  in 
Christ  is  a  phrase  which  is  at  once  seen  to  be 
made  of  words  that  are  like  the  bits  of  col- 
ored glass  in  the  kaleidoscope,  forming  many 
pictures  and  all  very  beautiful. 


152 


THE  TKIAL  OF  KEV.  DAVID  SWING. 


The  faith  of  a  little  child  in  Christ  would 
differ  essentially  from  the  faith  in  Jesus  of  a 
person  come  to  education  and  deeper  thought. 
In  the  child's  estimate  there  could  enter  no 
analysis  of  the  Saviour  in  the  theological 
sense  of  the  term.     His  offices-  - 

I  wish  to  call  especial  attention  to  the 
words  following  : 

His  offices  of  atoning  Lamb,  of  example, 
of  image  of  God  would  all  be  crowded  out  of 
the  young  heart  by  the  enthusiastic  recep- 
tion of  Christ,  as  a  loving,  glorified,  heaven- 
ly friend. 

Turn  now  to  the  same  sermon,  upon  page 
104,  where  we  find  salvation  described  as  a 
result  of  Christ's  death. 

If  Christ  by  his  death  wrought  out  a  salva- 
tion for  man,  man's  heart  must  be  the  prize 
bought  with  the  sacred  life  and  death.  There 
is  no  salvation  for  a  sinful  soul  except  a  pure 
life.  Hence,  if  Christ  effectually  assists  man 
to  this  pure  soul,  he  is  man's  Saviour  and  the 
pure  soul  is  the  salvation.  If  good  works  are 
the  salvation,  Christ  is  still  the  Saviour. 
Hence,  salvation  by  good  works  and  salva- 
tion by  Jesus,  the  Redeemer,  are  so  insepar- 
ably blended  that  any  effort  to  separate, 
must  result  in  what?  Must  result  in  an  in- 
sult to  the  cross  on  the  one  hand,  and  to  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount  on  the  other.  It  cannot 
be  that  Christ  would  save  a  race  in  their  sins 
but  from  their  sins ;  and  hence,  the  flight 
from  sin  is  always  a  flight  to  the  bosom  of 
God.  This  is  therefore  the  essence  and  soul 
of  Christianity — this  upward  flight.  Thus 
Christ  may  be  the  Saviour  of  mankind,  and 
yet  leave  our  ynoralUy  ns  the  final  embodiment 
of  his  salvation.  All  the  work  of  Christ  con- 
tained in  the  word  Calvary  or  atonement  is 
only  the  objective  part  of  the  soul's  rescue, 
whereas  man's  own  personal  rigliteousness  is 
the  subjective  salvation,  the  thing  for  which 
the  other  exists.  There  is  no  conflict  perhaps 
between  Paul  and  the  Saviour.  I  use  the 
word  "  perhaps  "  only  as  a  further  confession 
of  the  impossibility  of  determining  with 
scientific  exactness  the  whole  of  Paul's 
thought  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  whole  of 
the  Saviour's  thoughts  on  the  other.  Assum- 
ing inspiration,  there  is  of  course  no  conflict. 
But  not  thus  begging  the  question,  and  ap- 
pealing only  to  rationalism,  there  seems  no 
discord  in  the  two  strains  of  music.  Paul 
unfolds  salvation  from  without.  He  tells 
what  is  necessary  outside  of  man.  Hence, 
Calvary,  and  law,  and  imputation,  and  satis- 
faction come  upon  his  horizon  at  all  hours. 
There  the  Jewish  altar  is  transformed  into  a 
cross.  The  first  Adam  and  second  Adam 
meet.  The  past  sins  of  humanity  are  gather- 
ed up  mountain  high,  and  a  price  is  to  be 
paid  for  them — paid  in  blood  and  death. 

Mr.  Moderator,  if  such  language  as  this  is 
heretical,  I  am  sure  that  j^ou  and  I  are  here- 
tics.    But  I  read  on  : 

"While  these  scenes  of  objective  salvation 
are  pictured  in  intense  colors  upon  the  sky  of 


the  saint,  the  scenes  of  the  subjective  salva- 
tion are  passing  along  through  the  mind  of 
the  Saviour — souls  full  of  virtue,  full  of 
brotherly  love ;  souls  from  which  even  evil 
thoughts  have  been  banished  forever.  Paul 
is  busy  with  the  paths  to  a  destiny  ;  Christ 
with  the  beautiful  destiny  itself  There  ia 
no  necessary  conflict,  but  Christ  remains  as 
always,  everywhere  the  greater.  He  never 
halts  in  any  vestibule,  or  sits  down  upon  a 
confine.  He  passes  into  the  holy  places  of 
the  soul  and  utters  the  final  wisdom,  and 
prayer,  and  destiny  of  the  poor  mortals  wait- 
ing for  His  words. 

In  this  salvation,  which  hath  two  parts — 
the  way  and  the  going  in  that  way,  the  hand 
is  rash  indeed  that  would  -separate  the  hu- 
man character  from  the  salvation.  In  order 
to  do  this,  it  is  not  only  necessary  to  abandon 
all  the  Gospels  of  Christ,  but  it  is  necessary, 
also,  to  misunderstand  Paul,  and  torture  him 
upon  the  rack  of  system.  In  a  world  where 
the  absence  of  integrity,  the  absence  of 
righteousness,  is  so  remarkable  as  to  fill  so- 
ciety with  alarm  by  day  and  by  night,  and 
in  an  era,  too,  where  what  is  called  salvation 
by  faith  alone,  has  been  crowded  forward 
with  wonderful  ability  and  success  as  to  ac- 
ceptance, it  seems  high  time  the  scholastic 
meaning  of  salvation  were  made  to  expand 
until  it  should  receive  into  its  polluted  heart 
the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  and  the  morals  of 
Jesus.  The  faith  demanded  by  this  sinful 
race  is  one  that  will  not  sini})ly  look  upon  a 
career  of  individual  virtue,  a  faith  that  be- 
lieves in  Christ,  not  only  Ufion  Calvary,  but 
in  the  Gospels  ;  Christ  not  only  in  the  Mo- 
saic types,  but  Christ  in  the  sjiotless  purity 
recorded  by  Matthew  and  St.  John.  A  re- 
ligion is  needed  that  will  not  dare  to  tell 
mankiiid  that  works  are  of  no  significance; 
that  will  not  dare  cast  contempt  upon  any 
righteousness  except  an  imputed  one  ;  a  re- 
ligion that  will  not  dare  spurn  the  entire  life 
and  words  of  Him  who  spake  as  never  man 
spake.  This  is  not  a  salvation  without 
Christ.  The  difficulty  will  be  found  to  be 
that  it  has  too  much  of  Christ  in  it.  To  the 
teachings  of  Calvin  and  Luther  it  adds  the 
teachings  of  the  Saviour  as  an  important 
supplement. 

Of  the  same  scriptural  and  evangelical 
character  are  the  sentiments  recorded  upon 
the  107th  page  of  the  same  volume. 

If  the  parties  could  be  found,  who  have  in 
the  past  brought  about  this  divorcement  be- 
tween salvation  and  good  works,  they  should 
be  urged  to  come  forward  and  confess  their 
sin  before  the  nineteenth  century,  so  injured 
in  all  the  sacred  places  of  its  soul.  In  the 
name  of  injured  virtue,  in  the  name  of  public 
calamity,  come  and  coming,  they  should  read 
and  preach  not  only  the  grand  philosophy  of 
Paul,  but  the  still  grander  morals  of  Jesus 
Christ. 

There  is  a  Christianity  that  will  save  the 
world.  It  has  not  only  a  faith,  but  it  has  a 
morality  as  essential  as  its  faith.  It  not  only 
says,  BELIEVE  and  be  saved,  but  it  assigns 


REV.  MR.  NOTES'  ARGUMENT. 


15S 


damnntion  to  him  who  leftds  a  wicked  life. 
There  is  not  only  a  Christianity  that  will  fill 
heaven  with  saints,  but  earth  with  good 
citizens.  In  it  Paul  and  Christ  are  not 
rudely  separated  and  the  human  placed 
above  the  divine,  but  the  morals  of  the  gos- 
pels come  back  to  mankind,  and  the  an.\iety 
for  the  faith  is  no  greater  than  the  hungering 
after  righteousness. 

In  the  pictures  and  the  images  of  the  cross 
seen  in  all  homes  in  this  era  of  tomlor  senti- 
ment, there  is  often  to  be  seen  a  garland  of 
flowers,  surrounding  the  cruel  wood  in  their 
loving  embrace.  Emblems  of  life  and  death 
indeed!  but  may  they  be  to  us  always,  em- 
blems of  the  Sermon  upon  the  Mount,  in- 
wreathing  the  atonement,  forming  a  part  of 
the  indefinable  salvation  inseparable.  The 
Christ  that  gave  the  world  the  Cross,  wove 
also  the  garland  of  morality  that  completes 
its  adaptation  to  the  wants  of  man. 

Mr.  Barrett. —  Please  read  on  the  50th 
page,  in  reply  to  the  question,  as  to  what 
these  sermons  teach  concerning  the  agent  in 
regeneration. 

Rev.  Mr.  Noyes. — I  should  reach  that  pre- 
sently, but  I  will  read  it  now  as  desired. 

Let  us  come  now  to  a  comparison  of  the 
means  for  creating  or  producing  this  new 
heart.  There  are  sects  that  expect  a  new 
heart  to  come  from  the  common  means  of 
civilization.  A  new  heart  as  to  sin,  is  just 
like  a  new  taste  as  to  learning  or  music — a 
simple  result  of  culture.  They  call  in  no 
special  agents,  no  superhuman  influence. 

The  truly  orthodox,  to  the  influence  of  all 
natural  means,  add  the  special  influence  of 
God's  Spirit  and  of  a  Divine  Christ.  In  the 
very  outset  one  might  conjecture  that  a  re- 
ligion claiming  help  from  God  and  a  Divine 
Saviour,  would  most  powerfully  afl'ect  the 
heart.  None  of  the  influences  of  civilization 
are  left  out,  but  in  addition  to  these  the  heart 
opens  up  a  communion  with  God  ;  opens  up 
a  study,  and  soul  communion  with  Jesus 
Christ,  and  thus  casts  itself  into  the  presence 
of  infinite  purity,  power,  justice,  and  good- 
ness. What  are  the  ordinary  forces  of  civili- 
zation, compared  with  such  a  fellowship  as 
this?  The  element  to  be  eliminated  from 
man,  is  sin.  Now  civilization  bears  within 
itself  a  great  remnant  of  sin.  Civilization  is 
not  holy.  It  is  not  infinitely  just  and  pure. 
But  the  Spirit  of  God  is  the  very  opposite  of 
sin. 

It  will  bo  remembered  that  the  prosecutor, 
in  the  course  of  his  argument,  challenged  and 
defied  the  defense — to  produce  from  any  of 
this  documentary  evidence  a  single  passage 
which  should  distinctly  set  forth  any  evan- 
gelical doctrine.  I  think  the  challenge  is 
sufficiently  responded  to,  and  met  already. 
But  still  I  must  ask  your  indulgence  for  a 
longer  reading  of  these  excellent  and  saving 
truths,  which  I   find  scattered  all  through 


these  pages.  Turn  to  page  179—"  Truths  for 
To-Day  " — for  a  passage  to  which  I  remem- 
ber Prof.  Patton,  in  his  remarks,  especially 
called  the  attention  of  the  defense.  But  as  I 
shall  submit  the  pa.ssage  without  note  or 
comment,  perhaps  you  will  get  a  different 
impression  from  the  reading  of  it.  I  will 
read : 

We  stand  afar  oft".  This  Christ  has  ful- 
filled a  law  which  we  have  broken,  and  to 
us,  no  longer  able  to  flee  unto  ourselves  and 
find  peace.  He  says,  "  Come  unto  me  all  ye 
that  labor  and  are  heavy  laden,  and  I  will 
give  you  rest."  These  last  words  certainly 
are  orthodox.  "  At  his  voice,  all  Divine,  the 
cherubim  that  stand  between  Him  and  the 
paradise  lost  fall  back,  fall  back;  and  lo,  the 
exile,  penitent,  and  loving,  and  trusting,  sees 
the  gate  of  joy  open  again,  and  he  hears  not 
only  the  angels  rejoice  over  the  sinner  that 
repenteth,  but  he  hears  the  forgiveness  of  his 
fellow  men,  and  the  paradise  that  is  destined 
to  be  perfect  beyond  this  world  begins  now 
and  here  to  cast  forward  some  of  its  liQ;ht, 
and  it  dries  up  tears,  and  binds  up  broken 
hearts,  and  calls  back  exiles  all  along  this 
side  of  the  tomb. 

Page  239.—"  Truths  for  To-D&y.— Pardon 
and  atonement  form  part  of  the  great  salva- 
tion, but  the  vast  idea  is  only  fully  met  and 
satisfied  by  the  word  righteousness.  If  a  de- 
parture from  righteousness  was  man's  fall,  a 
return  to  it  will  be  his  safety,  the  heaven  of 
his  soul.  If  this  be  true,  then  Christ  is  a 
Saviour  in  so  far  as  he  helps  man  back  to 
that  high  place  from  which  he  fell  in  this 
career.  The  Cross  is  only  an  essential  pre- 
lude to  the  new  life.  Thesigh  of  the  sufi'er- 
ing  life  and  death  of  Jesus  was  only  the 
solemn  introduction  to  a  great  melody,  in 
whose  music  should  be  comprised  the  many 
strings  of  a  new  soul  and  a  new  career.  All 
of  sin  was  then  finished,  all  of  holiness  was 
then  begun.  To  all  christians  the  cross 
should  not  be  the  only  emblem  of  religion, 
but  over  it  should  be  flung  or  around  it 
should.be  wreathed  the  white  robe  of  virtue, 
to  buy  which  the  Cross  was  reared  and  the 
life  lived,  and  the  death  died.  If  salvation 
began  at  a  Cross  it  ended  not  there.  Its 
great  result  is  reached  only  in  the  word  holi- 
ness, for  if  in  the  image  of  God  man  was 
made,  to  that  image  Christ  leads  man  back. 

Rev.  Glen  Wood. — I  would  like  to  inquire 
if  the  speaker  would  be  likely  to  get  through 
if  he  continues  to  a  later  hour ;  if  not,  we 
might  want  to  adjourn,  as  it  is  now 
near  five  o'clock,  and  many  of  the  brethren 
must  leave  pretty  soon. 

Rev.  Mr.  Noyes. — I  shall  not  be  able  to 
get  through  to-night,  Mr.  Moderator,  though 
I  should  have  been  able  to  do  so  but  for  the 
necessity  that  seems  to  be  imposed  upon  me 
by  the  course  of  the  prosecutor  in  most  un- 
fairly garbling  this  testimony,  to  read  some- 


154 


THE  TEIAL  OF  EEV.  DAYID  SWING. 


what  at  length  from  the  documentary  evidence. 

Rev.  Mr.  McLeod. — We  have  had  no 
morning  session,  and  if  it  would  be  in  order 
at  this  time,  I  would  move  that  we  have  an 
evening  session. 

Rev.  Mr.  Noyes. — I  shall  not  be  able,  Mr. 
Moderator,  to  go  on  this  evening.  Let  me 
go  on  now,  and  read  from  page  240,  "Truths 
for  To-day:" 

Moral  perfection  being  the  final  import  of 
the  word  salvation,  the  faith  that  saves  the 
soul  will  need  to  appear  on  the  arena  as  a 
power  that  will  cast  its  possessor  forward  to- 
wards this  perfection. 

The  truth  which  is  here  set  forth  is  very 
distinctly  taught  in  the  second  chapter  of 
the  Epistle  of  Paul  to  Titus,  the  11th  to 
the  15th  verses.  The  prosecutor  had  occa- 
sion very  frequently,  in  the  course  of  his 
argument,  to  refer  to  the  Confession  of 
Faith,  but  never  once,  if  I  remember  right- 
ly, to  the  Bible.  I  venture  to  refer  to  the 
Bible,  and  I  hope  he  will  regard  it  as  almost 
as  good  authority  as  that  with  which  he 
undertakes  to  support  his  positions.  My 
own  preference  for  it,  as  a  book  of  reference, 
arises  partly,  perhaps,  from  my  greater  fa- 
miliarity with  it.    I  read  from  Paul  to  Titus. 

For  the  grace  of  God  that  bringeth  salva- 
tion, hath  appeared  to  all  men,  teaching  us 
that  denying  ungodliness  and  worldly  lusts, 
we  should  live  soberly,  righteously  and  god- 
ly, in  the  present  world,  looking  for  that 
blessed  hope  and  the  glorious  appearing  of 
the  great  God  and  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ ; 
who  gave  himself  for  us  that  He  might  re- 
deem us  from  all  iniquity,  and  purify  unto 
Himself  a  peculiar  people,  zealous  of  good 
works. 

Now,  I  will  read  the  passage  from  Prof. 
Swing  again:  "Moral  perfection  being  the 
final  import  of  the  word  Salvation,  the  faith 
that  saves  the  soul,  will  need  to  appear  on 
the  arena  as  a  power  that  will  cast  its  posses- 
sor forward  toward  this  perfection." 

I  think  Prof.  Swing  must  have  had  this 
passage  from  Titus  in  his  mind  when  he 
wrote  that  sentence.  And  now  I  will  read  a 
passage  from  "A  Missionary  Keligion"  upon 
page  44,  with  reference  to  the  doctrine  of 
Justification  by  Faith  :  "The  world  reveals 
three  great  wants — pardon  through  Christ, 
light  through  Christ,  a  new  heart  through 
the  Spirit.  Give  a  soul  these,  release  from  its 
guilt  "—If  I  remember  rightly,  Prof.  Patton 
denied  that  the  idea  of  guilt  was  anywhere 
referred  to  or  brought  out  in  any  way  in 
these  sermons,  but  notice  this  passage :  "Give 
a  soul  these,  release  from  its  guilt,  a  new 


heart  for  new  deeds,  new  light  that  its  deeds 
may  be  right,  and  it  has  found  the  inmost 
heart  of  Christianity." 

Turn  we  next  to  another  passage  which 
will  show  that  Prof.  Swing,  when  he  speaks 
of  faith,  uses  the  word  in  the  evangelical  or 
reformed  sense.  And  scarcely  can  you  find 
a  better,  or  a  stronger,  or  a  truer  statement 
of  the  relation  of  faith  to  works,  and  of  the 
vital  importance,  not  of  one  only,  but  of  both, 
in  order  to  salvation  ;  the  faith  to  justify  the 
sinner,  and  the  works  to  prove  the  reality 
and  the  power  of  the  faith.  The  passage  to 
which  I  refer  is  in  Truths  for  To-Day,  upon 
page  120. 

That  grand  text  which  helped  revolution- 
ize the  Christian  world,  in  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury, "The  just  shall  live  by  faith,"  hav- 
ing by  its  final  word  set  us  free  from  Romish 
error  and  despair,  ought  now  by  its  initial 
word  to  set  us  free  from  public  and  private 
neglect  of  a  virtuous  character.  Saved  from 
superstition,  we  at  last  need  a  salvation 
from  vice.  Eeligion  is  so  broad  it  demands 
the  whole  verse.  Such  a  pyramid  as  Chris- 
tianity cannot  be  founded  on  a  simple  word. 
Who  is  it  that  lives  by  faith?  The  just  I 
Oh,  yes  I  The  wicked,  the  dishonest,  the 
cruel,  cannot  it  seems,  live  by  a  simple  be- 
lief. It  is  the  just  who  thus  live.  It  would 
seem,  therefore,  that  faith  is  some  fountain 
out  of  which  the  human  family  is  to  draw  a 
more  perfect  character  each  day,  and  their 
honor,  and  piety,  and  charity,  are  not  to 
draw  life  from  man  but  faith  in  the  living 
God.     It  is  works  through  faith  that  save. 

When  your  best  works  fail  and  you  feel 
their  worthlessness,  fly  to  him  whose  Cross 
stands  between  you  and  God's  wrath.  Be- 
lieve in  Christ  and  find  peace.  But  when 
you  perceive  your  days  to  be  without  virtue 
and  without  charity,  and  v/ithout  religion, 
read  the  words  of  James, — that  a  man  is  jus- 
tified by  his  works  and  not  by  faith  only  ; 
and  let  this  sentence  be  as  the  thunder  of 
God's  justice  all  tlirough  thy  sinful  heart. 
Oh,  that  this  many-voiced  religion  might 
sound  its  true  music  all  through  our  country, 
and  give  us  men  of  love,  men  of  faith,  men 
of  hope,  and  men  of  virtue. 

The  Presbytery  then  adjourned,  with 
prayer,  until  9:30  o'clock  A.  M.,  May  16, 
1874. 


Saturday,  May  16,  1874. 
The  Presbytery  met  at  9:30  A.  M.,  when 
the  Rev.  Mr.  Noyes  resumed  his  argument 
for  the  defense  as  follows  : 

ARGUMENT  OF  THE  COUNSEL  FOR  THB 

DEFENDANT. 

(  Concluded.') 

Mr.  Moderator  and  brethren  of  the  Pres- 
bytery: No  one  regrets  more  than    myself 


EEV.  MR.  NOTES'  ARGUMENT. 


155 


that  the  prosecutor,  by  reason  of  his  torture 
of  Prof.  Swing's  sermons,  has  imposed  upon 
me  the  necessity  of  taking  far  more  of  your 
time  than  I  presumed  it  would  be  necessary 
to  take  before  the  case  was  taken  up  for  argu- 
ment; not  that  the  arguments  which  Prof. 
Patton  presented  were  of  a  character  that 
could  not  be  easily  overthrown,  but  simply 
for  the  reason  that  his  arguments  were  deftly 
inserted  in  the  place  of  evidence,  and  that  he 
attempted  to  induce  the  court  to  adjudicate 
this  case  upon  the  argutnent  and  not  upon  the 
evidence.  And  so  I  shall  be  obliged  to  con- 
sume a  very  considerable  portion  of  time 
still  to  come,  in  reading  from  the  documen- 
tary evidence.  I  must  be  permitted  also, 
before  proceeding  to  this  presentation,  to  call 
attention  to  the  fact,  which  certainly  could 
not  have  escaped  any  member  of  this  court, 
that  the  manner  in  which  this  documentary 
evidence  was  read  by  the  prosecutor  was 
such  as  in  itself  to  cast  ridicule  upon  it.  The 
contrast  was  very  striking  between  the  dig- 
nified and  respectful  manner  in  which  he 
read,  for  instance,  from  James  Freeman 
Clarke,  and  the  contemptuous  and  scornful 
manner  in  which  he  read  from  the  sermons 
of  Prof.  Swing  ;  and  I  could  not  but  be  re- 
minded, in  that  connection,  of  a  story  which  I 
heard  long  ago,  and  which  goes  to  show  how 
the  whole  force  of  any  passage  may  be 
changed  by  some  peculiarity  of  inflection  or 
emphasis.  In  the  good  old  colonial  times  of 
Massachusetts,  it  is  said  that  a  certain  minis- 
ter of  the  gospel  had  an  unspeakable  con- 
tempt for  the  then  acting  governor  of  the 
Commonwealth.  It  was  the  custom  then — 
and  Brother  Kittredge  can  say,  perhaps, 
whether  it  is  not  so  now — for  Thanksgiving 
proclamations  to  be  read  from  the  pulpit ;  and 
it  was  the  custom  of  the  governors  to  draw  up 
those  proclamations  in  due  form,  and,  after 
signing  their  name  witnessing  to  the  docu- 
ment, they  would  add  the  words,  "God  save 
the  Commonwealth."  This  minister,  deter- 
mined on  expressing  his  contempt  for  the 
governor,  whose  name  escapes  me,  but  whom 
we  will  call  familiarly  John  Smith,  read  the 
proclamation  in  due  form  ;  and  as  he  came 
to  the  signature,  and  prayer  following  it,  he 
said:  "John  Smith,  Governor!  God  save 
the  Commonwealth!"  This,  Mr.  Moderator, 
fairly  illustrates  the  manner  in  which  this 
documentary  evidence  was  presented,  so  far 
as  it  was  presented  to  the  court,  by  the  pro- 
secutor;   so  far  especially  as  relates  to  the 


manner  of  its  presentation  or  tone  in  which 
it  was  read.  As  to  the  garbling  of  it,  here 
and  there,  I  have  already  referred  to  that. 

I  shall  begin  my  reading  this  morning^ 
from  "  Truths  for  To-Day,"  upon  the  73d 
page. 

The  Rev.  Glen  Wood. — Couldn't  we  have  a 
little  more  light,  Mr.  Moderator. 

The  Rev.  Mr.  Noyes. — I  have  enough  light. 

The  Rev.  Glen  Wood. — I  have  not. 

The  Rev.  Mr.  Noyes. — I  can  give  you  light 
enough. 

The  Moderator. — Mr*  Wood  refers  to  the 
light  that  the  sexton  furnishes,  and  Mr, 
Noyes  refers  to  light  upon  the  question  which 
he  is  now  discussing. 

The  Rev.  Mr.  Noyes. — I  will  begin  the 
reading  of  extracts  which  will  set  forth  the 
views  of  the  defendant  upon  Faith  and  at- 
tendant doctrines,  and  which  will  show  how 
certain  doctrines  are  assumed  or  only  briefly 
stated  by  him ;  for  instance,  the  doctrine  of 
the  Inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  of  the 
Trinity,  of  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  and  the 
like.  It  is  made  one  of  the  ofienses  of  the 
defendant  that  he  contemns  and  ridicules 
the  doctrines.  The  passage  I  am  about  to 
read  does  not  lend  support  to  such  a  charge, 
but  disproves  it. 

No  man  can  preach  Christianity,  without 
being  a  doctrinal  preacher,  and  no  man  can 
acquire  a  Christian  or  a  religious  heart  ex- 
cept by  the  obedience  of  doctrine.  Doctrine 
sustains  the  same  relation  to  Christian 
character  and  hope  that  mechanical  law  sus- 
tains to  the  Cathedral  of  St.  Paul,  or  that 
the  law  of  sound  sustains  to  the  church 
chimes  or  the  music  of  the  many-voiced  or- 
gan. The  attempt  to  separate  Christianity  in 
any  way  from  its  own  announced  doctrines, 
is  as  pitiable  a  weakness  as  it  would  be  to  in- 
vite engineers  to  bridge  a  vast  river  by  emo- 
tional action  wholly  separate  from  any  creed 
of  mechanics. 

Having  reached  the  inference  that  Chris- 
tianity is  founded  upon  doctrine;  that  doc- 
trines are  its  state  laws,  and  that  all  preach- 
ers must  be  doctrinal  preachers,  and  all 
Christians  doctrinal  Christians,  let  us  look 
now,  into  the  quality  of  these  doctrines 
which  all  must  teach  and  obey.  When 
we  shall  have  found  these,  we  shall  have 
escaped  the  thing  which  the  wicked 
world  fears  or  suspects — a  group  of  human 
doctrines  supporting  some  church  de  facto, 
secured  by  usurpation  in  some  dark  night, 
arid  shall  have  found  what  the  wicked  world 
ought  to  love — a  church  dejure,  founded  by 
the  Almighty  and  sanctioned  by  the  longings 
of  the  soul,  and  by  the  experience  of  all 
generations.  In  seeking  for  these  doctrines, 
we  may  permit  Christ,  the  Founder  of  Chris- 


156 


THE  TKIAL  OF  REV.  DAVID  SWING. 


"tianity,  to  supersede  reason  and  point  out  a 
path  for  His  followers. 

But  the  moment  He  has  uttered  our  text — 
that  'Those  which  men  can  subject  to  ex- 
perience are  the  doctrines  that  be  of  God,' 
reason  rises  up  and  unites  its  voice  with  that 
of  simple  authority.  The  doctrines  of  Chris- 
tianity are  those  which  may  be  tried  by  the 
human  heart.  This  is  declared  often  in  the 
Divine  word.  Prom  the  words  of  Solomon, 
Tear  God  and  keep  his  commandments,  for 
this  is  the  whole  duty  of  man,'  to  the  Sa- 
viour's words  of  the  text ;  from  the  psalm, 
"Oh,  taste  and  see  that  the  Lord  is  good," 
to  the  deeply  spiritual  passage  where  Christ 
compared  himself  to  bread  to  be  eaten  by 
the  soul,  there  is  one  prominent  idea — that 
the  doctrines  of  religion  are  those  which  can 
be  converted  into  spiritual  being,  making  the 
spirit  advance  from  childhood  to  the  stature 
of  Christ. 

Turning  over  to  76th  page,  I  read  : 

But  when  the  Bible  says,  'He  that  believes 
shall  be  saved,'  it  unfolds  a  doctrine.  For 
human  experience  taking  up  this  faith,  is 
wholly  transformed  thereby,  as  a  desert  is 
transformed  by  rains  and  sun  into  a  paradise. 
Faith  is  man's  relation  to  Christ  just  as  the 
student's  love  of  knowledge  is  his  relation  to 
all  study  and  wisdom.  Faith  is  the  union 
between  the  cluster  and  the  vine  ;  between 
the  rose  and  the  nourishing  earth.  Separate 
the  rose,  and  it  withers — never  reaches  its 
bloom.  Hence  he  that  believeth  not  is 
damned  because  the  chain  that  should  have 
bound  him  to  God  being  broken,  his  moral 
world  sinks  and  goes  out  in  the  dark- 
ness, like  the  virgin's  oilless  lamp,  when  the 
joy  of  the  marriage  feast  was  near.  If  God 
is  the  life  of  the  M'orld,  then  the  soul  that 
separates  itself  from  Him  by  unbelief  would 
seem,  to  have  broken  the  chain  of  perpetual 
being. 

Upon  the  77tli  page  you  will  find  more 
evidence  by  which  to  be  guided  in  the  mak- 
ing up  of  your  verdict. 

Appealing,  therefore,  to  the  range  of 
human  experience,  we  must  declare  faith, 
repentance  and  conversion  to  be  unavoidable 
laws  of  Christianity,  not  having  come  into  it 
by  any  council  of  Catholics  or  Protestants 
but  direct  from  God  who  poured  into  the 
human  mind  its  reason,  and  into  the  heart 
its  love.  Not  so  easily  can  we  persuade  rea- 
son to  admit  as  a  matter  of  public  experience, 
the  idea  of  a  mediator.  We  waive  the  in- 
quiry as  to  Reason's  voice  because  we  are 
seeking  not  what  the  public  confesses,  but 
what  Christianity  itself  holds,  that  may  per- 
chance be  a  matter  of  experience,  may  be 
tasted  and  thus  be  seen  to  be  good.  Under 
this  head,  of  doctrine  open  to  experience,  we 
must  include  the  notion  of  a  mediator,  for 
we  find  millions  of  hearts  glad  in  the  feeling 
that  there  is  a  daysman  between  them  and 
God.  The  hymns  of  many  ages,  from  the 
tombstones  of  the  Christian  catacombs, 
where  a  few  sweet  words  were  written  to  the 
'Lamb   of  God,  I  come,   I  come,'   of  our 


century,  the  experience  of  man  as  to  the 
idea  of  a  mediator  has  rolled  along  like 
Dante's  vast  bird-song  over  the  forest  of 
Chiassi. 

When  we  sing  the  hymn,  "Jesus,  Lover 
of  My  Soul,"  or  "Rock  of  Ages,  Cleft  for 
Me,"  and  look  into  the  faces  of  those  borne 
upward  by  this  sentiment,  we  know  that 
this  idea  of  a  mediator  belongs  to  human  ex- 
perience, and  hence  is  to  be  enrolled  among 
the  doctrines  of  any  true  Christianity.  Let 
us  approach  now,  a  more  warmly  disputed 
proposition,  that  the  divineness  of  Christ  is 
something  essential  in  the  Christian  system. 
The  Trinity,  as  formally  stated,  cannot  be 
experienced.  Man  has  not  the  power  to 
taste  the  threeness  of  one^  nor  the  oneness  of 
three,  and  see  that  it  is  good.  "  Man  cannot 
do  His  will  here  and  know  of  the  doctrine 
whether  it  be  from  God.  It  is  not  conceiva- 
ble that  any  one  will  pretend  to  have  expe- 
rienced three  persons  as  being  one  person, 
the  same  in  substance  and  at  the  same  time 
equal. 

This  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  however,  is 
not  rejected,  not  denied,  by  Prof.  Swing,  but 
it  is  distinctly  affirmed  by  him,  for  he  at  once 
goes  on  to  say  : 

This  doctrine,  therefore,  belongs  to  a  sim- 
ple religion  of  fact,  and  not  to  one  of  expe- 
rience ;  and  hence,  the  distance  between  that 
idea  and  the  idea  of  faith  or  penitence,  is 
the  diiference  between  a  fact  and  a  perpetual 
law.  But  while  human  experience  cannot 
approach  the  Trinity,  it  can  approach  the 
divineness  of  Clirist;  for  if  Christ  be  not 
divine,  every  impulse  of  the  Christian  world 
falls  to  a  lower  octave,  and  light,  and  love, 
and  hope,  alike  decline. 

I  wish  you  would  give  attention  to  the 
above  passage,  restored  to  its  context,  and 
which,  torn  out  of  its  context  was  so  dan- 
gerous and  heretical  in  the  view  of  the  pros- 
ecutor. It  is  the  passage  which  he  quoted  to 
the  witness,  and  on  which  he  asked  his  opin- 
ion as  to  whether  it  was  an  evangelical  sen- 
timent. 

Now,  take  the  passage  in  its  connections. 
I  have  read  what  goes  before,  I  will  read 
what  follows  immediately  after.  "  There  is 
no  doctrine  into  which  the  heart  may  so  in- 
weave itself  An^fijid  anchorage  and  peace,  as 
in  the  divineness  of  the  Lord."  And  now  as- 
suming all  the  while  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  to  be  a  fact,  Prof.  Swing  goes  on  to 
say  :  "  Christianity  bears  readily  the  idea  of 
three  offices — does"  office  "  mean  manifesta- 
tion, or  an  appearing,  in  the  dictionary  which 
the  prosecutor  uses  ?  If  it  does,  I  would  like 
to  know  what  the  dictionary  is.  "  Hence 
Christianity  bears  readily  the  idea  of  three 
offices,  and  permits  the  one  God  to  appear  in 


KEV.  MR.  NOYES'  ARGUMENT. 


157 


Father  or  in  Son,  or  in  Spirit;  but  when  the 
divine  is  excluded  from  Christ,  and  He  is  left 
a  mortal  only,  the  heart,  robbed  of  the  place 
■where  the  Glory  of  God  was  once  seen,  and 
where  the  body  was  once  seen  rising  from  the 
tomb,  and  where  the  words  were  spoken 
'Come  unto  me  ye  that  labor,  and  are  heavy 
laden  ' — the  heart  thus  robbed,  is  emptied  of 
a  world  of  light  and  hope."  Now,  interpret 
these  sentences  in  the  light  of  the  respondent's 
declaration,  which  he  has  made  before  this 
Presbytery,  and  which  is  to  the  effect  that  he 
holds  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  in  the  evan- 
gelical sense.  So  interpreted,  the  doctrines 
here  set  forth  are  not  heretical.  If  they  are, 
there  is  more  than  one  heretic  belonging  to 
this  Presbj'tery.  I  will  read  also,  continuing 
on  the  same  line  of  thought,  from  the  80th 
page: 

In  presence  of  such  experience,  to  make 
Christ  only  a  frail  human,  is  to  strike  Chris- 
tianity in  its  heart's  life;  and  hence,  among 
the  great  llaws  of  the  Christian  religion  se- 
lected by  the  measurement  of  our  text,  we 
must  include  the  divineness  of  our  Lord. 

As  a  result  of  the  principle  here  given, 
that  the  doctrines  of  Christianity  are  such 
as  may  be  tried  by  experience,  hundreds  of 
what  the  world  calls  dogmas  are  excluded 
from  any  enumeration  of  essentials^  and  must 
stand  only  among  the  facts  of  Christian  his- 
tory, and  not  among  religious  laws  of  life 
and  salvation.  God  does  not  ask  you  to  taste 
the  tasteless,  nor  to  experience  that  which 
lies  beyond  sight  and  sense ;  but  to  cast 
yourself  into  the  laws  of  faith  and  conver- 
sion, and  repentance,  and  love,  and  hope, 
and  of  the  Divine  Lord,  and  upon  these  be 
carried  by  a  new,  recreative  experience  over 
to  a  new  world,  called  a  new  heart,  here ; 
called  heaven  hereafter.  If  we  base  our 
religion  upon  a  revelation,  we  must  find  in  it 
not  only  the  existence  of  a  doctrine,  but  the 
relative  value  of  a  doctrine.  "This  is  the 
point  to  be  carefully  noted — the  relative  val- 
ue of  a  doctrine."  We  need  not  go  to  the 
Bible  for  a  truth,  and  to  man  for  an  estimate 
of  the  value  of  a  truth.  The  comparative  value 
of  a  truth  is  to  be  learned  froni  the  guide  that 
pretends  to  lead  the  human  race.  For  ex- 
ample, if  the  doctrine  of  faith  plays  a  more 
prominent  part  in  the  Bible  than  the  doc- 
trine of  infant  baptism,  such  also  will  be 
the  order  of  their  usefulness.  If  the  three 
offices  of  God,  as  Father  and  Redeemer  and 
Spirit,  are  made  more  prominent  than  the 
idea  that  these  three  persons  are  one  God — 

And  to  this  certainly  no  valid  objection 
can  be  made  ;  for  we  do  not  find,  and  no  one 
pretends  that  we  do  find,  a  formulated  state- 
ment of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  in  ^the 
Bible,  though  we  believe  that  tha  doctrine  is 
there  taught. 

If  the  three  'offices  of  God  as  Father  and 


Redeemer  and  Spirit  are  made  more  promi- 
than  tlie  idea  that  these  three  persons  are  one 
God,  then  what  mankind  will  need  most 
and  use  most  will  be  the  three  influences, 
God  as  Father,  God  as  Saviour,  God  as  Holy 
Spirit ;  and  what  he  may  make  secondary  is 
the  enigma  of  the  three  in  one,  for  why 
make  prominent  things  which  are  not  con- 
spicuous in  the  inspired  guide  ?  By  this  esti- 
mate of  Christianity,  illustrated  in  this  dis- 
course, you  who  are  afar  olf  and  unwilling  to 
come  nearer  to  this  Saviour,  may  at  least  find 
a  method  of  discriminating  between  a  church 
weighed  down  by  a  hundred  declarations, 
and  that  simple  religion  of  Christ  which  an- 
nounces but  few  laws,  and  those  all  measur- 
able by  your  own  experience. 

Pass  on  to  the  83d  page: 

Oh  !  skeptical  friend  !  Oh  !  Christian,  too  ! 
fly  each  day  from  the  debate  over  simple 
events  or  entities  in  religion,  to  the  laws  of 
being  that  may  be  tasted  like  sweet  fruit, 
and  which  confess  themselves  at  once  to  be- 
long to  the  nature  of  God  and  man.  It  is  in 
this  realm  of  experience  the  millions  of  earth 
become  one. 

This  sermon  was  evidently  intended  to 
lead  skeptical  minds  to  those  practical  truths 
which  would  bring  them  to  Jesus  Christ, 
who  said,  "If  any  man  will  do  his  will,  he 
shall  know  of  the  doctrine,  whether  it  be  of 
God,  or  whether  I  speak  of  myself."  But 
does  Prof.  Swing  teach  that  experience  is  the 
only  evidence  of  Christian  doctrine  ?  Let  us 
see.     Look  at  page  101 : 

The  evidences  of  Christianity  must  be 
weiglied  by  a  mind  not  averse  to  virtue,  not 
averse  to  the  being  and  presence  of  a  just 
God;  by  a  mind  not  wholly  wedded  to  exact 
science,  but  full  of  tender  sympathy  with 
man,  and  pity  for  him  if  his  career  of  study 
and  love  is  to  terminate  at  the  grave ;  by  a 
mind  capable  of  looking  away  from  the  mar- 
ket place,  and  from  the  pleasure  of  sense, 
and  of  beholding  the  vast  human  family 
flashing  their  angelic  wings  afar  off  beyond 
these  humble  times  and  scenes.  The  evi- 
dences of  Christianity  must  be  weighed  by  a 
soul  capable  of  sadness  and  of  hope.  Not 
simply  must  the  books  of  theologians  be  read 
for,  and  the  books  of  skeptics  against,  the 
doctrines  of  faith,  but  the  genius  of  earth,  its 
little  children,  its  joys,  its  laughter,  its  cra- 
dle, its  marriage  altar,  its  deep  love  crushed 
often  in  its  budding,  its  final  white  hair,  its 
mighty  sorrow,  embracing  all  at  last  from  its 
Christ  to  its  humblest  child,  in  its  black 
mantle,  must  be  confessed  in  its  inmost 
heart;  then,  when  to  such  a  spirit  the  com- 
mon arguments  of  religion  are  only  whis- 
pered, the  sanctuary  of  God  would  seem  to 
be  founded  in  eternity,  and  men  here  and 
angels  elsewhere  will  throng  its  blessed 
gates.  "While  the  singer  of  Israel  stood  out 
in  the  sinful  street  and  saw  the  prosperity 
of  the  wicked,  his  feet  had  well  nigh 
slipped,  but  when  he  went  into  the  sanctuary 


158 


THE  TKIAL  OF  KEV.  DAVID  SWING. 


of  God  it  seems  that  a  new  vision  came  from 
among  the  incense  and  the  song. 

Now,  let  us  turn  again  to  faith— the  doc- 
trine of  faith  as  we  find  it  set  forth  upon 
page  242. 

"Faith  is  evidently  the  soul's  attachment 
to  a  being."    It  is  not  assent  to  a  proposition 

this  the  defendant  does  not  teach.     It  is 

attachment  to  a  person  I  "  The  New  Testa- 
ment is  as  wont  to  say,  '  Lovest  thou  me'  as 
'believest  thou  me.'  It  sums  up  all  the  com- 
mandments by  the  word 'love,' and  neglects 
the  word  'faith'  for  many  a  page."  And  we 
even  read  in  the  Scriptures  that  we  are  saved 
by  hope  I  "  The  followers  of  Christ  so  loved 
him,  so  gathered  about  his  feet  Magdalen- 
like, bathing  them  with  tears,  that  under 
the  word  '  faith  '  we  see  flying  along  a 
spiritual  sentiment,  an  angel  of  admiration 
and  devotion.  Faith,  then,  is  the  moral 
drift  of  the  heart.  It  is  an  inner  genius,  ever 
growing,  ever  self-developing.  It  is  an  impulse 
of  the  soul  combining  the  two  elements  of  a 
firm  belief  and  a  deep  attachment.  It  is, 
therefore,  both  an  intellectual  act  and  a  senti- 
ment." "Christian  faith  is  both  a  perception 
and  a  sentiment  for  gathering  up  the  phen- 
omena of  Christ's  life  and  death,  reaching 
out  towards  his  Cross  and  purity,  and  para- 
dise and  eternal  life,  it  becomes  a  great  intel- 
lect, grasping  a  spiritual  landscape,  and  then 
in  the  feelings  that  follow,  of  joy,  forgiveness, 
hope,  repose,  it  becomes  a  sentiment  pervad- 
ing the  soul.  It  thus  becomes  the  rational 
foundation  of  a  new  life." 

Eational,  or  reasonable — that  is,  not  arbi- 
trary. Evidently  the  preacher  means  to  say 
that  this  doctrine  of  christian  faith,  or  salva- 
tion by  faith,  is  a  doctrine  which,  when 
properly  understood,  commends  itself  to  the 
judgment,  and  the  reason,  and  the  conscience. 
It  is  the  law  of  salvation.  It  is  the  law  in 
all  religions  ;  but  still,  only  Christianity  is  a 
saving  religion.  You  will  remember  that 
the  prosecutor  called  especial  attention  to  the 
force  of  that  little  word  if.  Let  me  approve 
his  suggestion,  and  take  it  up  and  commend 
it  to  you  afresh  right  in  this  connection ;  for 
I  am  about  to  read  a  passage  found  on  page 
245,  a  part  of  which  the  prosecutor  embodies 
in  specification  nineteen.  It  is  to  be  regretted 
that  he  did  not  follow  his  own  counsel ;  if  he 
had  done  so,  perhaps  the  heresy  would  have 
disappeared  from  the  passage  which  I  will 
now  read:  "7/"  there  were  enough  truth — 
truth  of  morals  and  redemption — in  the  Mo- 
hammedan or  Buddhist  system  to  save  the 
soul,  "faith  would  be  the  law  of  salvation 
within  those  systems." 

The  question  here  is  simply  a  question  of 
fact.  There  is  no  redemption  in  those  sys- 
tems.    If  there  were,  then  faith  would  be  the 


law  of  salvation  in  them  ;  and  yet  they  re- 
quire a  belief.  But  Prof.  Swing  does  not 
here  say  that  salvationby  faith  is  not  peculiar 
to  Christianity.  On  the  contrary,  by  any 
fair  and  reasonable  construction  of  his  words, 
that  is  just  what  he  does  say.  I  now  quote  : 
Faith  comes  into  Christianity  thus,  not  by 
an  exceptional  decree  of  God,  but  by  the 
universal  law  of  nature.  The  mind  is  so 
fashioned  that  its  belief  is  always  working 
out  its  salvation  or  destruction.  As  the 
ear  is  always  leading  the  musician  forward 
toward  a  better  music,  toward  a  sweet  salva- 
tion from  the  rudeness  and  discords,  of  yes- 
terday, so  faith  in  Christ  is  always  an  angel 
leading  the  spirit  onward,  nearer  to  the  con- 
dition that  knows  no  sin  or  sore  temptation. 
When  the  prophet  of  God  commanded  Naa- 
man  to  go  bathe  thrice  in  the  river  and  his 
disease  would  be  cured,  the  command  was 
arbitrary.  It  was  not  an  instance  of  nature 
acting  naturally.  Tou  may  repair  to  the 
same  river  now,  in  sickness,  and  lo,  there  is  no 
power  in  its  stream.  But  when  the  Bible 
says,  "  By  faith  are  ye  saved,"  the  words 
come  down  from  eternity,  and  belong  to  the 
human  race  in  any  century  and  by  any  shore. 
As  long  as  the  ear  may  allure  the  spirit 
along  toward  melody,  so  long  will  faith  un- 
fold in  the  soul  a  deeper  and  more  perfect 
salvation.  It  is  nature,  not  toiling  among 
rocks  and  streams,  but  toiling  in  the  soul ; 
not  a  miracle  but  a  perpetual  order  of 
sequence.  When  God  says,  "Believe  and  be 
saved,"  it  is  not  as  it  was  when  He  com- 
manded the  leader  Moses  to  smite  a  rock  or 
stretch  out  a  magical  rod  over  the  streams  of 
Egypt.  That  was  an  isolated  command.  It 
was  spoken  for  a  day.  When  the  command 
of  faith  was  spoken,  it  was  spoken  in  the 
eternity  of  the  past  for  the  endless  years  to 
come.     As  the  idea  of  decrees — 

Let  us  see  about  this  doctrine  of  divine 
sovereignty,  as  we  have  it  distinctly  asserted 
in  this  passage. 

As  the  idea  of  decrees  does  not  originate 
in  Christianity  but  falls  into  it  from  the  hu- 
man mind  wliich  always  must  think  that 
God  has  decreed  all  things,  and  as  the  diffi- 
culty of  free  will  finds  its  origin,  not  in  the 
Bible  but  in  the  mind  itself,  to  .salvation  by 
faith  is  not  a  creation  or  invention  of  the 
New  Testament,  but  is  a  law  that  has  pushed 
its  way  up  into  the  Testament  from  the  realm 
without. 

Now,  men  have  always  diflfered  in  opinion 
on  the  question  whether  there  is  a  natural 
element  in  faith,  a  reasonable  element,  or 
not. 

The  Moderator. — Would  you  allow  me  to 
suggest  to  you  to  make  a  little  plainer  the 
points  where  you  pass  from  Prof.  Swing's 
language  to  your  own?  Those  who  have 
books,  have  no  difficulty  in  following  you,  but 
those  who  have  not,  might. 


EEV.  MK.  NOTES'  AKGUMENT. 


15ft 


Rev.  Mr.  Noyes. — Yes,  sir,  I  will  do  so.  I 
am  not  reading  from  Professor  Swing,  now. 
I  was  just  saying  that  men  have  always  dif- 
fered in  opinion  on  the  question  whether 
there  is  or  is  not  a  natural  element,  a  reason- 
able element  in  Faith.  Probably,  they 
always  will  differ.  And,  whatever  the  opin- 
ion expressed  by  the  defendant  upon  this 
point,  I  submit  that  there  is  no  heresy  in  it. 
It  is  vain  for  the  prosecutor  to  undertake  to 
convict  Professor  Swing  of  heresy  in  regard 
to  this  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith. 
This  will  be  made  more  apparent  by  attend- 
ing, as  I  shall  next  ask  you  to  do,  to  the  ser- 
mon "  Good  Works,"  beginning  upon  page 
105.  Here  Professor  Swing  plants  himself 
squarely  upon  the  text  which  he  announces 
for  his  discourse.  He  puts  himself  in  oppo- 
sition to  those  who  pervert  it.  He  makes  a 
strong  and  timely,  because  much  needed,  ap- 
peal in  behalf  of  good  works.  Seeing  that 
the  nation  has  become  a  reproach  by  reason 
of  corruption  in  high  places,  and  that  dis- 
honesty prevails  widely  in  commercial  cir- 
cles, he  calls  upon  men  to  seek  after  "right- 
eousness which  exalteth  a  nation."  He  op- 
poses the  views  of  Solifidians  ;  and  in  this  he 
has  good  company,  for  Dr.  John  Eadie,  who, 
I  believe,  would  pass  in  the  Presbyterian 
church  in  this  country,  as  a  sound  and  ortho- 
dox Presbyterian,  says  that  "  the  Solifidians 
held  that  justification  depended  upon  faith 
alone ;  but  while  justification  rests  upon  faith 
alone,  it  does  not  rest  upon  that  faith  which 
is  alone.''  And  is  not  this  Professor  Swing's 
idea?  Such,  I  believe  all  unprejudiced 
readers  of  this  sermon  would  declare.  Paul 
says,  "Faith  worketh,  workeih  by  love." 
He  insisted  on  good  works  in  the  third  chap- 
erof  his  epistle  to  Titus,  theseventh  and  eighth 
verses ;  "  That,  being  j  ustified  by  his  grace  we 
should  be  made  heirs  according  to  the  hope 
of  eternal  life.  This  is  a  faithful  saying,  and 
these  things  I  will  that  thou  affirm  constantly, 
that  they  which  have  believed  in  God — " 
and  if  we  are  going  to  be  so  very  critical 
about  language,  certainly  this  passage  is  not 
a  clear  and  unequivocal  statement  of  the 
doctrine  of  salvation  by  faith  in  Christ,  for 
it  says — "  That  they  which  have  believed  in 
Ood  might  be  careful  to  maintain  good 
works.  These  things  are  good  and  profitable 
unto  men."  Also,  First  Timothy,  sixth 
chapter,  seventeenth  and  nineteenth  verses: 
"  Charge  them  that  are  rich  in  this 
world   that   they  be   not    highminded,   nor 


trust  in  uncertain  riches,  but  in  the  living 
God  who  giveth  richly  all  things  to  enjoy, 
that  they  do  good  ;  that  they  be  rich  in  good 
works ;  ready  to  distribute,  willing  to  com- 
municate." 

Such  is  Paul's  teaching  as  to  the  import- 
ance and  necessity  of  good  works.  Profes- 
sor Swing's  teaching  is  not  different.  Turn 
to  page  105  and  see. 

There  was  once  a  sect,  and  they  have  not 
all  gone  from  earth  yet,  who  were  called 
Solifidians,  because  they  expected  salvation, 
because  they  believed  that  Christ  would  be- 
stow or  had  bestowed  upon  them  that  great 
boon.  This  sect  had  condensed  the  whole 
Bible  into  a  single  sentence,  and  all  conduct 
into  a  mental  operation  called  belief,  and 
hence  their  chief  virtue  must  have  been  that 
of  placid  expectation.  In  hours  of  gratitude 
over  the  office  of  a  mediator,  there  often 
seems  nothing  in  the  world  but  JUtti  and  His 
Cross.  Comparatively  all  else  fades  ;  but  the 
reverie  of  the  Christian  is  soon  broken  by 
the  words,  ""Why  stand  ye  here  idle?" 
"  Blessed  are  the  pure  in  heart,"  and  "  Ye  see 
that  by  works  a  man  is  justified,  and  not  by 
faith  only  ;"  and  in  a  moment  he  finds  him- 
self in  the  very  midst  of  a  varied  world,  rich 
and  beautiful  as  the  tropics — a  world  in  which 
faith  in  Christ  is  of  vast  moTnent,  but  does 
not  lay  waste  the  whole  continent.  The 
question  how  the  mediatorial  office  of  Christ 
may  do  all,  if  man  must  also  do  good  works, 
is  just  such  a  question  as  is  sprung  upon  us 
by  the  human  will.  How  can  God  accom- 
plish his  will  and  at  the  same  time  permit 
man  to  possess  an  independent  self-determin- 
ing volition.  I  know  of  no  method  by  which 
we  can  make  works  necessary  or  essential  in 
a  kingdom  of  perfect  redemption,  or  perfect 
forgiveness  ;  but  this  difficulty  we  pass  by, 
and,  as  in  the  case  of  the  will,  would  cast 
ourselves  upon  the  evident  facts  of  Chris- 
tianity and  of  common  life ;  and  the  facts  are 
that  the  Bible,  from  first  to  last,  insists  upon 
personal  righteousness.  Common  life  or 
society  teaches  us  also  that  a  salvation  which 
did  not  insist  upon  virtue  would  be  the  de- 
struction of  society  in  all  its  temporal  inter- 
ests. If  heaven  could  be  sustained  and  peo- 
pled by  faith  without  good  works,  earth  at 
least  could  not ;  it  would  be  compelled  to  re- 
sort to  moral  lives. 

The  doctrine  of  salvation  by  faith  must, 
therefore,  be  so  stated  and  held  as  to  leave 
society  its  friend,  trusting  faith  rather  than 
fearing  it,  and  must  be  so  stated  and  held  as 
to  leave  the  other  doctrines  of  Christianity 
some  reason  of  existence.  In  their  joy  over 
the  newly  discovered  idea  of  salvation  by  the 
mediation  of  Christ,  some  of  the  divines 
around  Luther,  with  Luther  himself,  declared 
that  no  amount  of  sin  would  imperil  the  soul 
that  should  possess  this  marvellous  faith. 
Thus  at  one  stroke  the  doctrines  of  regenera» 
tion,  and  repentance,  and  santification,  and 
love  to  man,  are  cut  down  as  cumberers  of 
the  ground. 


160 


THE  TKIAL  OF  EEV.  DAVID  SWING. 


And  now  if  the  prosecutor  calls  m  question 
these  doctrines  as  they  are  set  forth  in  the 
tjassages  which  I  have  read,  I  beg  to  refer 
iiim  to  the  last  number  of  the  paper  of 
which  he  is  the  editor ;  wherein  it  is  said 
that 

No  great  principle  must  be  taken  by  itself, 
and  herein  is  where  so  many  mistakes  are 
made  by  many  thinkers.  The  principle  or 
law  of  gravita^tion  by  itself  would  plunge  the 
solar  system  into  the  fiery  billows  of  the  sun 
and  give  us  a  grand  cremation  of  worlds.  So 
Luther  was  so  filled  with  the  grand  doctrine 
of  justification  by  faith  that  he  ignored  and 
contradicted  the  necessary  fruits  and  pur- 
poses of  faith  ;  but  he  reformed  his  opinion 
as  he  pursued  further  the  study  of  the  Word. 
The  wildness  of  all  extremists,  the  meteor 
like  rush  away  from  harmonious  systems  of 
truth  which  we  often  see  in  the  world  of 
thought,  results  from  taking  a  single  truth- 
ful principle  and  following  it  without  regard 
to  other  principles  which  bear  upon  it. 

Verily,  a  second  Daniel  come  to  judgment ! 
The  Interior,  unless  we  say  that  it  too  is 
vague  and  ambiguous — The  Interior  asserts 
that  good  works  are  "the  purpose  of  faith" 
— which  is  parallel  to  that  charge  that  Prof. 
Swing  teaches  that  faith  saves  because  it 
leads  to  a  boly  life — because  he  speaks  of 
works  as  "the  destiny  of  faith."  Oh  !  what 
is  The  Interior  coming  to  ?  If  we  cannot 
trust  it,  what  and  whom  can  we  trust  ? 

But  let  us  turn  next  to  the  111th  page. 

Faith  indeed  will  save  a  soul,  but  faith  then 
is  not  rigidly  a  belief;  it  is  more,  it  is  a 
friendship,  for  the  word  belief  is  often  wholly 
omitted,  and  for  whole  pages  the  love  for 
Christ  reigns  in  its  stead.  In  St.  John  the 
word  "love"  quite  excludes  the  word  "faith." 
Taith  therefore  being  a  devotion  to  a  leader, 
a  mere  belief  is  nothing.  A  man  is  justified 
by  his  active  afi'ections  and  not  by  his  ac- 
quiescence in  some  principle. 

Professor  Swing  teaches,  then,  that  faith 
is  an  active  affection  ;  and  if  that  be  false 
doctrine  then  the  Apostle  Paul  teaches  false 
doctrine,  for  he  says  precisely  the  same 
thing,  when  he  declares  that  "faith  worketh 
by  love." 

Thus  faith,  in  the  biblical  sense,  is  not  a 
simple  belief  but  a  mystical  union  with 
Christ,  such  that  the  works  of  the  Master 
are  the  joy  of  the  disciple.  AVorks,  that  is, 
results — a  new  life — are  the  destiny  of  faith. 

The  very  doctrine  that  The  Interior  has 
sent  forth  to  the  world. 

The  reason  of  its  wonderful  play  of  light 
upon  the  religious  horizon.  As  man,  by  his 
sin,  lost  the  image  of  God,  so  by  faith,  that 
is  by  devotion  to  Christ,  he  is  by  cross  and 
by  forgiveness  and  by  conversion,  rewards 
of  His  love,  carried  back  to  the  lost  holiness. 


Paith  is  not  a  simple  compliment  to  the 
Deity,  for  it  is  not  God  who  needs  human 
praise  so  much  as  it  is  man  who  needs  vir- 
tue, and  hence  faith  must  be  such  a  oneness 
with  Christ  as  shall  cast  the  spirit  more  and 
more  each  day  toward  that  uprightness  call- 
ed "works,"  which  man  has  lost,  but  which 
only  God  loves.  Hence  James  truly  says,  a 
man  is  not  justified  by  what  he  may  believe 
but  by  such  a  newness  of  inner  life  as  may 
cast  the  soul  into  harmony  with  righteous- 
ness. Faith,  as  a  belief  and  a  friendship,  is 
good  so  fiir  as  it  bears  the  soul  to  this  moral 
perfection.  The  perfection  is  the  city  to 
which  faith  is  an  open  way,  and  the  only 
highway  and  gate  ;  therefore,  by  the  final 
works  or  condition  a  man  is  justified. 

You  will  remember  these  words  as  embod- 
ied in  the  indictment  on  which  the  respond- 
ent is  here  arraigned ;  and  I  think  that 
whatever  impression  the  words  may  have 
conveyed  to  the  minds  of  any  of  this  body, 
as  they  stood  isolated,  torn  out  of  their  con- 
nection, and  torn  again  in  the  mangling  pro- 
cess of  the  prosecutor's  logic,  they  will  not 
be  regarded  as  conveying  any  dangerous  or 
false  teaching  when  put  here  in  the  connec- 
tion where  they  belong. 

But  I  will  continue  tiie  reading,  from 
page  112. 

You  all,  in  senses  more  or  less  strict,  look 
upon  the  Bible  as  being  the  Divine  history 
and  law  of  religion.  It  is  the  way  of  salva- 
tion. However  Christian  men  may  differ 
about  the  Bible  when  it  speaks  in  the  name 
of  science,  and  tells  you  how  the  earth  was 
made,  and  when ;  yet  when  it  comes  to 
morals  there  is  no  denj'ing  that  its  pages  are 
the  record  of  God's  will  as  to  the  life  and  sal- 
vation of  His  children. 

Now,  in  that  book  throughout,  the  works 
of  men  play  so  profound  a  part  that  the 
verse  of  St.  James  seems  only  the  reverbe- 
ration of  all  the  voices  between  the  Genesis 
and  the  Apocalypse.  The  great  word  of  the 
Old  Testament  was  "righteousness."  The 
fear  of  the  Lord  was  the  beginning  of  wis- 
dom. "Fear  God  and  keep  His  command- 
ments for  this  is  the  whole  duty  of  man." 
Nowhere  in  all  that  large  volume  of  relig- 
ious law  and  history  is  there  any  salvation 
alluded  to  apart  from  uprightness. 

Here  follows  now  a  quotation  from  Dr. 
Green,  of  Princeton,  who,  if  I  am  not  incor- 
rectly informed,  was  a  teacher  of  the  distin- 
guished prosecutor  in  this  case.  If  Dr. 
Green  is  right,  then  certainly  Prof.  Swing  is 
not  wrong.     Prof.  Swing  says  : 

In  studying  this  life  of  Job,  one  of 
the  Princeton  divines  seems  to  become 
enamored  of  good  works  as  opposed  to 
belief  alone,  and  says  :  Job  "  is  evidently 
protrayed  as  a  model  man."  ***** 
''No  account  is  made  of  ancestry  or  of  con- 
nection with  the  covenant  people  of   God. 


EEV.  ME.  NOTES'  AKGUMENT. 


161 


There  is  no  hint  of  relationship  to  Abraham. 
He  was  plainly  not  one  of  his  descendants." 
*•  *  *  "Evidently  it  is  not  outward  associa- 
tions or  connections,  though  of  the  most 
sacred  kind,  that  constitute  the  evidence  and 
pledge  of  God's  favor,  hut  pe7-sonal  character 
and  life.  In  every  nation  and  in  every  com- 
munion he  that  feareth  God  and  worketh 
righteousness  is  accepted  of  Him."  This 
Princeton  Divine  does  not  pause  here  as 
though  fearing  he  might  still  be  giving  only 
n  doubtful  sound,  he  proceeds  to  say  :  "  The 
important  question  is  not,  Are  you  a  Jew  or  a 
Gentile?  Are  you  a  member  of  this  or  that 
branch  of  God's  visible  church  ?  Nor  even, 
are  you  a  member  of  any  outward  body  of 
professing  christians  whatever?  But  have  you 
personally  that  character  which  is  acceptable 
to  God,  and  are  you  leading  a  life  that  is 
pleasing  in  His  sight?" 

These  words  are  exceedingly  valuable,  not 
only  because  true,  but  because,  coming  from 
a  great  orthodox  origin,  they  show  that  the 
heart  of  the  most  extreme  champions  of 
"  faith,"  can  no  longer  separate  salvation 
from  a  life  of  honor  as  to  God  and  man.  Re- 
ligion is  confessed  to  be  character.  But  does 
not  this  Princeton  teacher  base  the  salvation 
of  Job  upon  his  sole  relation  to  the  coming 
Kedeemer,  apart  from  all  personal  character? 
I  have  shown  that  in  his  judgment,  the  im- 
portant question  is  "  Have  you  that  personal 
character  which  is  acceptable  to  God?" 
Hence  the  "works"  of  St.  James  are  a  part 
inseparable  of  the  great  salvation.  What 
the  divine  from  whom  we  quote  does  say 
about  the  "Redeemer"  of  Job  is  equally 
liberal  and  equally  wonderful.  "  God  was 
his  Redeemer ;  Christ  who  was  in  the  begin- 
ning with  God  and  was  God,  is  ours.  When 
Job  appeals  to  his  Redeemer,  he  does  so  with- 
out even  remotely  apprehending  that  He 
(the  Redeemer)  is  the  second  person  of  the 
Godhead  ;  for,  of  the  distinction  of  persons 
in  the  Divine  Being  and  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity,  as  unfolded  in  the  New  Testament, 
he  knew  nothing. 

It  would  thus  appear  that  this  Princeton 
Divine  estimates  the  relative  value  of  the 
Trinity  about  in  the  same  way  that  Prof. 
Swing  does.  Prof.  Swing  continues  his  dis- 
course. 

The  inference  from  these  words  is  certain- 
ly this  :  That  the  most  devoted  students  of 
the  Old  and  New  Testaments  do,  in  our  day 
at  least,  perceive  the  overshadowing  question 
to  be,  as  Dr.  Green  says:  "Have  you  that 
personal  character  which  is  acceptable  to 
God,"  it  may  be  impossible  for  all  persons 
to  see  the  Redeemer  just  alike  in  his  relation 
to  each  soul,  but  in  the  midst  of  this  conflict 
between  human  works  and  the  works  of  the 
Redeemer,  the  heart  must  cling  to  its  person- 
al holiness  as  something  about  which  there 
can  be  no  doubt.  In  the  Bible  there  may  be 
some  obscurity,  hiding  from  some  minds  the 
nature  of  the  atonement,  or  mediation,  or 
substitution  of  one  for  another,  but  in  all  the 
Bible  there  is  no  doubt  left  any    where  to 


hang  over  the  doctrine  that  "  The  pure  in. 
heart  only  shall  be  blessed."  Passing  away 
from  the  old  time  and  the  land  of  Job  and 
coming  to  the  absolute  presence  of  Christ, 
we  And  Him  not  informing  Nicodemus  that 
he  must  cherish  a  state  of  belief,  but  that  "Ae 
must  be  born  again."  Paul  is  also  eloquent 
over  the  new  man,  the  new  spirit  within. 
Hence,  while  the  Redeemer,  both  of  the  old 
Patriarch  and  of  the  latest  Christian,  may 
often  be  carrying  forward  His  part  of  the 
great  human  salvation  behind  clouds,  heavy 
or  light — clouds  which  Job  could  not  pene- 
trate—  and  which  hence  mankind  at  large 
need  not,  the  human  side  of  salvation,  name- 
ly ;  a  new  life  and  new  works,  lies  always 
in  a  clear  light;  clear,  whether  viewed  from 
the  Bible  or  from  the  crying  need  of  society. 
Society,  at  large  and  in  the  minute,  from 
empire  to  fireside,  demands  a  religion  of  good 
works.  It  would  permit  the  man  of  Uz  to  sink 
his  Christ  in  the  idea  of  God,  without  sepa- 
rating the  unity  into  its  Trinity,  but  it  dare 
not  permit  him  to  turn  aside  from  being  eyes 
to  the  blind  and  feet  to  the  lame. 

This  teaching  of  Prof.  Swing  is  substan- 
tially the  same  as  the  teaching  of  Dr.  Green, 
the  eminent  Princeton  divine,  a  professor  in 
the  Princeton  Theological  Seminary.  Prof. 
Swing  continues : 

Society  could  not  demand  that  he  (Job) 
embody  exactly  so  much  in  his  hymn  to  his 
Redeemer,  but  it  was  compelled  to  beg  him 
to  omit  nothing  from  his  principle  "  to  fear 
God  and  eschew  evil."  This  was  the  human 
side  of  salvation,  and  any  short-comings 
there,  would  deeply  injure  all  the  sacred  in- 
terests of  state  and  home  and  heart. 

We  are  informed  that  God  so  loved  the 
world  that  He  sent  His  Son,  that  whosoever 
believed  in  Him  should  not  perish  but  have 
eternal  life.  This  love,  therefore,  will  not 
permit  the  world  to  suffer  in  personal  good- 
ness by  relying  upon  external  righteousness. 
There  is  nothing  society  so  much  needs  to- 
day as,  not  Divine  righteousness,  but  human 
righteousness. 

The  Divine  righteousness,  let  me  say,  is 
complete  and  perfect  and  we  must  grow  into 
that ;  we  must  be  clothed  with  it.  We  must 
put  it  on  as  a  garment.  We  must  receive  it 
as  a  spirit  into  our  hearts  until  we  become 
like  to  Him,  our  Lord  and  our  Saviour ;  and 
this  is  the  dootrine  of  this  sermon.  Man 
needs  righteousness.     I  will  read : 

There  is  nothing  society  so  much  needs  to- 
day as,  not  Divine  righteousness,  but  human 
righteousness.  Fo^-  want  of  this  our  nation 
mourns,  our  cities  mourn,  our  churches  are 
disgraced,  our  very  homes  are  often  made 
desolate.  Our  land  has  everything  except 
righteousness. 

Now  I  submit  whether  the  prosecutor's 
garbled  quotations  from  these  sermons  were 
not  unfair  to  the  last  degree,  and  misleading, 


162 


THE  TRIAL  OF  EEV.  DAVID  SWING. 


and  whether  his  inferences  are  not  mistaken 
and  false,  and  totally  unworthy  of  a  Profes- 
sor of  Theology.  I  turn  next  to  page  238, 
•where  we  shall  find  a  passage  which  sets 
forth  the  difference  between  a  believer's  jus- 
tification or  legal  salvation  and  his  sanctifi- 
cation.     I  read  again  : 

Salvation  of  man,  therefore,  must  be  man's 
transformation  from  a  sinful  to  a  holy  nature. 
It  is  a  return  of  that  which  was  lost.  A 
legal  salvation  may  be  a  preliminary  or  a 
concomitant,  but  cannot,  in  morals,  be  the 
chief  salvation.  In  the  financial  department 
of  life,  a  debtor  can  be  saved  by  having  his 
debts  paid.  Condemned  to  death,  a  criminal 
can  be  saved  by  a  letter  of  pardon  having 
upon  it  the  seal  of  a  king  ;  but  in  morals,  a 
salvation  is  not  simply  a  discharge  from  a 
debt,  or  an  escape  from  a  penalty,  but  a 
change  in  the  spirit  ;  a  transition  from  vice 
to  virtue.  The  term,  therefore,  draws  its 
deepest  interpretation  from  the  term  lost.  If 
man  is  lost  in  wickedness,  he  is  found  again 
in  a  perfection  of  moral  character.  If  my 
calamity  is  hunger,  food  is  my  release;  if  my 
soul's  calamity  is  sin,  virtue  is  my  only  res- 
cue. In  law  there  is  such  a  thing  as  tech- 
nical danger  or  technical  safety.  In  the 
dark  Kansas  days,  there  was  such  a  thing  as 
"  constructive  treason,"  a  treason  inferred 
from  resemblance  to  real  treason  ;  but  there 
can  be  no  such  thing  as  an  inferential  sal- 
vation, a  constructive  release,  a  technical 
escape.  The  meaning  of  the  term  is  to  be 
determined  by  its  location.  In  morals,  sal- 
vation is  spiritual  perfection.  The  forgive- 
ness of  past  sins,  the  payment  of  a  moral 
debt  may  be  preliminaries,  or  attendant 
events,  and  may,  by  their  importance,  aspire 
to  the  name  of  a  rescue ;  but  these  titles  are 
the  gift  of  gratitude  rather  than  of  fact,  for 
after  a  man's  sins  are  all  forgiven  or  atoned 
for,  he  stands  forth  still  lost,  for  he  retains 
the  low  nature  that  produces  sins  and  made 
necessary  the  pardon  or  the  atonement.  If 
to  us,  lost  in  the  wilderness  without  a  sun  or 
a  star,  or  a  path  to  guide,  there  comes  a  be- 
nevolent hermit,  a  dear  mentor,  and  leads  us 
to  the  right  path  and  sets  our  faces  home- 
ward, he  is  at  once  our  saviour ;  but  our  per- 
fect salvation  will  come  from  our  going  that 
path.  Our  goiiig  and  the  mentor  combine  in 
the  escape,  and  yet  he  lives  in  memory  as  the 
kind  saviour  of  our  bewildered  hearts. 

Pardon  and  atonement  form  parts  of  the 
great  salvation,  but  the  vast  idea  is  only  fully 
met  and  satisfied  by  the  word  righteousness. 

And  now,  Mr.  Moderator,  if  there  may  be 
a  recess  of  a  few  minutes  I  shall  find  it  a 
relief. 

On  motion  the  Presbytery  took  a  recess  for 
ten  minutes. 


After  which,  the  Eev.  Mr.  Noyes  resumed 
his  argument  as  follows  : 
Before  I  resume  the  reading  from    the 


volumes  of  Prof.  Swing's  sermons,  I  desire 
to  call  the  attention  of  the  court  to  the  opin- 
ion of  Dr.  Hodge — the  elder  Dr.  Hodge 
with  reference  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity, 
an  opinion  which  may  be  found  recorded 
upon  page  290  of  Presbyterian  Eeunion 
Memorial  volume. 

If  a  man  comes  to  us,  and  says  he  adopts  the 
doctrine  taught  in  our  Confession,  we  have 
a  right  to  ask  him,  "Do  you  believe  there 
are  three  persons  in  the  Godhead,  the  Father, 
the  Son  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  that  these 
three  are  one  God,  the  same  in  substance, 
equal  in  power  and  glory?  If  he  says,  "yes," 
we  are  satisfied.  We  do  not  call  upon  him 
to  explain  how  three  persons  are'  one  God,  or 
to  determine  what  relations  in  the  awful 
mysteries  of  the  Godhead  are  indicated  by 
the  terms.  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost. 

In  my  readings  from  Prof.  Swing's  ser- 
mons, I  have  shown  that  he  does  distinctly 
assert  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  and  that 
he  often  assumes  it.  He  does  not,  however, 
undertake  to  explain  it.  But  his  Trinitarian- 
ism  fully  meets  the  requirement  of  Dr.  Hodge 
as  expressed  in  the  passage  I  have  quoted 
from  him. 

And  now  let  me  call  your  attention  to 
some  passages  from  the  defendant's  sermons 
which  show  that  faith  produces  works  and 
character. 

Turn  to  page  247,  "Truths  for  To-Day :" 

In  the  transformation  of  the  soul,  two 
things  are  at  once  perceived  to  be  desirable, 
(1)  a  new  form  of  industry,  and  (2)  a  new 
form  of  being,  called  by  theologians,  good 
works,  and  a  7iew  heart.  But  not  aspiring  to 
the  honors  of  theologians,  let  us  not  afiect 
their  terms,  but  content  ourselves  by  saying 
that  our  safety  demands  a  better  industry 
and  a  better  soul.  We  must  he,  and  act  like 
Christ. 

Page  248 : 

The  impulse  of  this  grand  Christian  in- 
dustry is  faith  in  Christ  as  the  soul's  Saviour. 

Page  251 : 

The  soul  attached  to  Jesus  Christ  by  this 
faith,  which  is  both  an  intellect  and  a  pas- 
sion, is  gradually  transformed  into  his  like- 
ness ;  and  step  by  step  draws  near  to  that 
salvation  found  in  perfect  virtue. 

Page  252 : 

Faith  is  the  normal  state  of  a  sinless  soul, 
a  youth  permeating  all  the  hours  from  cradle 
to  grave. 

I  call  your  attention  next  to  a  few  passages 
which  set  forth  the  doctrine  of  the  judicial 
punishment  of  sin.  The  prosecutor  denies 
that  Prof.  Swing  teaches  this  doctrine  at  all. 
Let  us  see. 

Page  271: 

When  Paul  has  said,  "We  shall  all  appear 


REV.  MR.  NOTES'  ARGUMENT. 


163 


before  the  judgment  seat  of  Christ,"  he  has 
stated  a  cardinal  ^rM^/i  of  Chi-istianity;  but 
when  this  idea  passes  from  logical  Paul,  to 
the  mystical  John,  it  becomes  clothed  with 
its  richest  drapery,  and  amid  the  breaking 
of  seals  and  the  sounding  of  trumpets  and 
rolling  thunders,  the  vast  multitude  pours 
along  toward  the  Great  Judge,  and  beg  the 
overhanging  rocks  and  mountains  to  cover 
them  from  his  wrath." 

Pages  80  and  81  of  the  sermon  entitled 
"Value  of  Moral  Motives:" 

There  was  something  in  the  times  of  Cal- 
vin and  Luther,  and  on  to  Jonathan  Ed- 
wards, that  enabled  the  motive  of  punish- 
ment to  be  very  influential  for  good.  To  in- 
quire whether  anything  would  do  as  good 
service,  would  be  about  like  the  inquiry 
whether  some  other  method  of  light  and 
heat  might  not  have  been  resorted  to  by  the 
Creator,  that  would  have  made  our  existing 
sun  unnecessary.  It  is  certain  that  the  ter- 
ror of  the  Lord  wielded  a  mighty  influence 
on  the  past  centuries;  and  the  same  impulse 
of  virtue  will  always  be  extant  and  active  ; 
but  to  the  millions  of  a  subsequent  age  a  new 
impulse  is  liable  to  arise,  and  expressing 
itself  in  the  words,  "The  love  of  Christ  con- 
straineth  us,"  may  for  a  time  be  a  complete 
universe  to  the  existing  heart. 

Sermon  entitled  "  Influence  of  Democracy 
on  Christian  Doctrine."  On  page  13  you 
■will  find  an  unequivocal,  unambiguous  state- 
ment of  the  doctrine  of  God's  sovereignty: 

The  doctrine  of  God's  absolute  sovei-eignty 
is  just  as  true  as  it  was  in  the  days  of  King 
CEdipus,  or  of  Calvin.  It  will  always  remain 
a  confessed  fact,  that  God's  will  must  be  the 
supreme  will  of  the  world ;  but  while  this  is 
confessed,  yet  we  do  perceive  that  our  age,  as 
a  fact,  passes  over  the  great  absolutism  in 
silence,  compared  with  the  age  of  Athens  or 
Geneva,  and  God's  love  and  Fatherhood  be- 
come more  visible  than  the  absolute  despot- 
ism. 

The  idea  of  love  is  brought  more  promi- 
nently forward  ;  the  idea  of  almighty  power 
or  divine  sovereignty,  is  left  more  in  the 
background. 

And  now,  Mr.  Moderator  and  brethren  of 
the  Presbytery,  I  bring  to  an  end  these  long, 
but  I  trust  not  wearisome,  or  profitless  read- 
ings from  Professor  Swing's  sermons.  I 
might  extend  them  indefinitely,  but  I  feel 
that  the  documentary  evidence  which  I  have 
already  presented,  is  simply  overwhelming, 
and  that  if  there  is  any  one  in  this  body  who 
is  not  satisfied,  then  neither  would  he  be  con- 
vinced though  one  rose  from  the  dead.  I 
ask  you  to  consider  this  evidence.  Give  it 
that  weight  to  which  it  is  entitled  on  account 
of  the  clear  and  unequivocal  statements  of 
evangelical   doctrines   which  it  contains.     I 


know  that  you  have  not  failed  to  find  in  these 
passages,  as  I  have  read  them,  these  evangeli- 
cal doctrines,  and  that  you  will  not,  in 
making  up  your  verdict,  be  influenced  by 
any  fear  of  Professor  Patton's  contempt  of 
your  intelligence.  For  you  remember  that 
he  has  warned  you  in  advance,  that  if  you  do 
find  the  evangelical  doctrines  in  these  seif- 
mons,  he  will  believe  that  you  do  not  know 
what  these  doctrines  are  yourselves.  I  have 
responded  to  and  answered,  and  as  I  think, 
conclusively,  the  challenge  which  the  prose- 
cutor ofl'ered  to  the  defense,  wherein  he  de- 
fied us  to  bring  from  the  sermons  of  Profes- 
sor Swing;  any  clear  and  unequivocal  state- 
ment of  the  doctrines  of  the  Cross. 

And  now,  in  return,  I  throw  down  before 
him  the  challenge  in  which  I  defy  him  to 
bring  from  these  writings  any  passage  which, 
submitted  to  an  unprejudiced  and  an  intelli- 
gent man,  may  not  by  him  be  easily  and 
naturally  construed  in  conformity  with  tlie 
doctrines  of  the  Gospel.  I  do  not  doubt  at 
all  that  he  will  go  over  in  his  closing  speech, 
some,  at  least,  of  these  passages  which  I 
have  read  ;  and  if  I  may  judge  of  what  he 
will  do  by  what  he  has  done,  I  do  not  doubt 
that  he  will  tear  them  in  pieces,  as  a  wild 
beast  would  tear  its  prey.  But  I  submit  to 
this  body  that  these  passages  which  have 
been  given,  largely  without  note  or  com- 
ment, will  not  by  you  be  so  tortured — will 
not  be  in  your  minds  so  turned  and  twisted 
out  of  their  natural  sense  as  to  cause  you  to 
miss  of  their  real  and  intended  meaning. 

Before  I  pass  away  from  the  consideration 
of  this  indictment  formally,  as  such,  there 
are  two  things  which  I  have  to  say.  The 
first  is.,  that  the  opening  statements  of  my 
argument  have  been,  as  I  believe,  abundant- 
ly proved,  both  by  oral  and  documentary 
testimony.  I  said  that  there  was  nothing 
in  this  indictment,  from  beginning  to  end, 
so  far  as  the  specifications  are  concerned,  ex- 
cept the  inferences  of  the  prosecutor.  Tak- 
ing these  away,  there  would  be  nothing  left 
of  the  complaint ;  and  these,  as  I  have 
shown,  ought  never  to  have  been  admitted 
into  the  indictment  at  all.  The  complaint, 
on  the  very  face  of  it,  is  defective  through- 
out, either  in  substance  or  in  form.  The 
form  is  vague  and  the  substance  is  only  the 
shadow  cast  by  the  dark  thoughts  which  the 
prosecutor  has  entertained  of  Prof.  Swing's 
language.  I  shall  not,  therefore,  follow  him 
through  his  ingenious  pleadings  as  he  pass- 


164 


THE  TKIAL  OF  KEY.  DAVID  SWING. 


ed  from  one  specification  to  another,  per- 
verting the  language  of  the  defendant,  and 
so  making  it  appear  that  its  teaching  was 
false  and  dangerous.  I  speak  to  intelligent 
men,  who  can  judge  of  the  plain  and  obvi- 
ous meaning  of  language  as  well  as  he.  But 
there  are  two  of  the  specifications  on  which, 
before  I  leave  this  part  of  the  subject,  I  de- 
sire to  ofi"er  a  few  words.  They  are  specifi- 
cations twenty-third  and  twenty-fourth. 

The  address  of  the  defendant  yesterday, 
must  have  met  and  removed  doubts  which 
any  members  of  this  court  may  have  enter- 
tained upon  this  subject,  but,  for  the  sake  of 
making  the  testimony  cumulative  and  over- 
whelming, I  desire  to  recall  to  mind  two 
statements  which  have  been  submitted  in 
evidence.  The  first  was  made  by  Dr.  Patter- 
son when  he  was  upon  the  witness  stand.  His 
testimony  was  distinct  and  emphatic  to  the 
efi"ect  that  Prof.  Swing  had  explained  to  him 
that  in  his  use  of  the  word  eclecticism,  he 
meant  only  an  eclecticism  of  use  and  not  an 
eclecticism  of  authority.  And  when  the 
prosecutor  said  on  the  last  day  of  his  argu- 
ment, that  Dr.  Patterson's  statement  was  not 
evidence,  he  simply  impeached  the  veracity 
of  the  witness ;  and  I  do  not  think  this  court 
will  sustain  that  impeachment.  The  one  as- 
sumption upon  which,  as  a  basis  or  founda- 
tion, the  prosecutor  has  reared  the  whole 
splendid  superstructure  of  his  argument,  is 
this,  and  this  only  :  That  the  respondent  at 
your  bar  is  a  liar.  To  sustain  this  assump- 
tion— in  other  words,  to  keep  the  foundation 
under  the  argument  and  so  prevent  it  from 
tumbling  down  into  shapeless  ruin,  all  risks 
must  be  accepted.  The  defendant's  categor- 
ical averments  must  be  emphatically  denied, 
and  the  supporting  testimony  of  responsible 
witnesses  must  be  fearlessly  contradicted. 
And  all  this  in  direct  defiance  of  the  author- 
ity of  the  General  Assembly,  which  has  de- 
clared that  the  accused  party  shall  be  ac- 
corded the  poor  privilege  of  defining  the 
meaning  of  the  language  which  he  employs. 
Fully  corroborative  of  the  testimony  of  Dr. 
Patterson,  was  the  statement  which  the  de- 
fendant made  in  his  letter  to  Dr.  Junkin, 
from  which  I  will  read,  and  then  pass  on  to 
other  matters,  submitting  the  case  without 
further  remark  to  your  judgment  and  de- 
cision. 

For  the  sake  of  the  readers  of  The  Pres- 
iyterian,  before  whom  you  have  spread  out 
the  most  wonderful  piece  of  religious  lite- 
rature which  it  has  ever  been  my  pleasure  to 


read,  I  shall  state  here  briefly  but  carefully 
the  views  which  I  do  hold  regarding  the 
moral  quality  of  parts  of  the  Old  Testament. 
There  is  nothing  new  in  the  views.  My 
public  relation  to  them  results  from  the  ac- 
cident that  I  was  invited  to  preach  upon  the 
moral  status  of  the  Old  Testament.  When 
God  authorized  the  Israelites  to  wage  ex- 
terminating wars,  he  was  not  announcing  a 
perpetual  law  of  human  conduct,  but  was 
authorizing  an  act  rather  than  a  laxv.  When 
the  old  divorce  law  was  passed,  it  did  not 
embody  an  eternal  principle.  Neither  did 
the  law  that  stoned  to  death  a  rebellious  son, 
and  that  demanded  eye  for  eye,  and  tooth 
for  tooth.  If  the  exterminating  wars  were 
ordered  for  an  age  only,  and  if  the  principle 
is  not  perpetuated  in  the  Christian  era,  then 
God  must  have  arrested  it  because  it  was  not 
an  eternal  law  of  right.  These  temporary, 
defective  principles,  good  for  a  time  only, 
were  designated  inspired  depravity  to  distin- 
guish them  from  the  wicked  acts  of  men  not 
acting  under  command  of  God.  The  personal 
sins  of  the  patriarchs  were  ordinary  deprav- 
ity and  presented  no  enigma  to  the  skeptical, 
but  the  moral  qualities  of  the  old  divorce 
laws,  etc.,  inasmuch  as  God  was  their  author, 
could  not  have  been  superseded  by  Christ  on 
the  ground  of  their  being  a  human  weakness. 
We  were,  therefore,  driven  to  the  conclusion 
that  a  defective  moral  principle  could  have 
been  given  by  inspiration.  Such  laws  could 
do  a  good  work  for  a  time,  and  then  could  be 
repealed  by  the  God  in  the  New  Testament 
who  had  set  them  up  in  the  Old.  Jesus 
Christ,  therefore,  and  his  Testament  are  a 
revelation  of  the  everlasting  true  and  right. 
His  divorce  law  repeals  the  old  writing  of 
divorcement,  His  persuading  by  preaching 
supersedes  the  exterminating  wars,  His 
"praying  for  enemies"  supersedes  the  psalms 
in  which  the  Hebrews  cursed  their  enemies. 
Rationalism  is  founded  upon  reason,  but  this 
theory  is  founded  upon  the  supernatural  in 
Christ,  and  has  not  one  trace  of  rationalism 
in  it.  From  first  to  last  it  is  purely  Chris- 
tian. 

Passing  now,  from  the  documentary  to  the 
oral  testimony,  to  which  I  have  so  far  made 
only  incidental  reference,  I  need  make  no 
extended  review  of  it.  Of  oral  testimonj'^,  I 
cannot  but  think  that  every  member  of  this 
court  will  agree  with  me  when  I  say  that 
the  prosecutor  had  absolutely  none.  In  this 
respect,  the  trial  on  his  part  proved  to  be  a 
farce.  His  own  witnesses  turned  out  to  be 
strong  witnesses  for  the  defense.  Especially 
was  this  true  of  Mr.  Thompson  and  Doctor 
Patterson.  Nor  will  the  prosecutor's  great 
skill  in  special  pleading,  at  all  avail  to  break 
the  force  of  Dr.  Patterson's  testimony.  Here 
was  a  ministerial  brother  who  early  fulfilled 
his  duty  to  his  misrepresented  and  maligned 
friend.  He  did  not  shun  him,  and  nurse  his 
doubts  until  he  should  be  ready  to  give  them 


EEV.  MK.  NO  YES'  AKGUMENT. 


165 


voice,  and  send  them  to  every  part  of  the 
church,  but  he  went  to  him  in  the  spirit  of 
love.  What  he  learned  in  those  interviews, 
he  has  declared  to  this  court.  His  testimony 
cannot  in  the  least  be  invalidated  by  any  at- 
tempt to  pervert  the  language  which  he  em- 
ployed in  his  letter  to  the  Interior.  The  cir- 
cumstances under  which  that  letter  was 
written  are  a  sure  guide  to  its  right  interpre- 
tation. Prof.  Swing  had  been  publicly  ac- 
cused of  having,  in  heart,  gone  clear  over  to 
the  enemy's  camp.  The  air  had  been  filled 
with  suspicions  against  him.  On  every  hand 
men  were  speaking  to  each  other  their  fears. 
In  this'  state  of  things  Dr.;.Patterson,  obey- 
ing a  very  manly  impulse,  wrote  to  the  Inte- 
rior^ expressing  strongly  his  disapprobation 
of  its  course  towards  Prof.  Swing,  in  giving 
to  the  winds  its  "doubts"  concerning  his  doc- 
trinal soundness.  Knowing  that  the  latter 
was  openly  charged  with  suppressing  the 
truth  in  his  ministry,  he  said  that  in  so  far 
as  he  failed  to  preach  the  central  doctrines  of 
the  Gospel,  his  preaching  was  seriously  de- 
fective. "Was  that  saying  that  he  did  avoid 
these  doctrines?  Not  at  all.  It  was  only 
saying  that  if\\Q  did — and  that  i/ is  an  impor- 
tant word  here,  too — and  in  so  far  as  he  did, 
his  preaching  was  seriously  defective  ;  and  to 
that  position,  I  have  no  doubt  that  Dr.  Pat- 
terson holds  to-day.  But  the  prosocutor  un- 
dertakes to  impeach  the  testimony  given  by 
the  elders  of  the  Fourth  Church.  Well  he 
might,  for  it  bore  overwhelmingly  against 
him  and  his  case. 

He  insists  that  parole  testimony  has  no 
value,  where  written  sermons  may  be  had 
in  evidence.  To  this,  I  have  two  things  to 
say  in  reply.  These  elders  are  the  "  living 
epistles"  of  Mr.  Swing's  ministry.  On  the 
theory  of  the  prosecutor  that  they  have  been 
fed  on  the  poison  of  false  doctrines,  and  on 
this  alone,  I  think  that  Prof.  Patton  him- 
self must  admit  that  they  show  themselves 
to  be  pretty  sound  and  healthy  Christians. 
It  is  hardly  worth  while  to  be  fed  on  "  the 
sincere  milk  of  the  word ''  at  all,  if  false 
teachings  can  make  such  orthodox  Chris- 
tians. The  very  same  sermons  from  which 
Prof.  Patton  sucks  only  the  deadly  poison  of 
false  doctrines,  are  sermons  from  wliich  these 
plain,  uncavilling  men  extract  the  honey  of 
truth.  That  which  is  deadly  to  him,  is 
nourishing  to  them.  That  which  fills  his 
soul  with  trouble,  fills  theirs  with  light,  and 
peace,  and  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost,      That 


which  makes  him  "black  with  astonish- 
ment " — to  use  the  expressive  words  of  the 
old  prophet — makes  them  radiant  with  joy. 
That  which  fills  him  with  sorrow  and  sigh- 
ing, inspires  them  to  go  on  their  way  with 
songs. 

I  ask  your  attention  to  this,  Mr.  Moder- 
ator. It  is  a  curious  phenomenon.  It  is 
worth  studying  for  the  lessons  it  may  yield. 
"  Can  a  fountain  send  forth  at  the  same  place 
sweet  water,  and  bitter  ?"  We  know  it  can- 
not. But  where  is  the  bitterness  then,  of 
which  the  procccutor  so  loudly  complains  ? 
It  must  be  in  him  and  not  in  the  fountain  of 
whose  waters  he  still  persists  in  drinking  so 
copiously.  The  oral  testimony  of  these 
elders,  therefore,  becomes  very  strong  ;  and, 
taken  in  connection  with  the  documentary 
evidence,  it  amounts  to  an  absolute  demon- 
stration. This  testimony  shows  the  impres- 
sions which  these  elders  received  from  hear- 
ing the  sermons,  and  it  appears  that  these 
impressions  are  totally  different  from  the  im- 
pressions which  Prof.  Patton  received  from 
reading  them— or  rather  from  reading  garb- 
led portions  of  them.  But  then,  where  is  the 
common  sense  man  who  does  not  know  that 
the  best  way  by  which  to  test  the  nourishing 
quality  of  roast  beef  for  instance,  is  to  eat  it, 
and  not  to  analyze  it.  And  so  business  men 
who  are  laden  with  manifold  responsibilities 
and  cares,  need  to  feed  upon  the  truth,  audit 
is  not  for  the  cloistered  theologian  to  demand 
that  they  shall  be  skilled  enough  first  to  ana- 
lyze it,  and  see  if  it  be  tainted  with  error 
before  they  dare  to  feed  upon  it. 

This  is  one  form  of  my  answer  to  the  pro- 
secutor's special  pleading  against  the  admis- 
sibility and  value  of  this  evidence.  My 
other  answer  will  serve  to  correct  a  mistake 
into  which  he  seems  to  have  fallen.  We  have 
in  no  instance  set  out  to  prove  the  contents 
of  a  paper  ;  the  only  thing  which  we  have 
aimed  to  do  is  to  establish  bof.re  this  body 
the  thoroughly  evangelical  character  of  the 
defendant's  preaching ;  and  this  we  have 
done  by  documentary  and  by  oral  testimony. 
This  oral  testimony  is  the  testimony  of  men 
who  sustain  prominent  business  and  social 
relations  to  this  community,  and  whose 
moral  and  Christian  characters  are  without  a 
stain.  Prof  Swing  often  fills  out  his  ser- 
mons by  the  addition  of  extemporized  pas- 
sages. His  teachings  in  the  prayer-meetings 
are  all  extemporaneous,  and  we  have  proved 
that  these  teachings  are  not,  as  this  indict- 


166 


THE  TEIAL  OF  KEY.  DAVID  SWING. 


ment  falsely  charges,  heretical,  but  evangeli- 
cal and  fruitful.  Nor  can  I  regard  it  as  a 
generous  thing  in  the  prosecutor  to  under- 
take to  break  down  this  testimony  by  attempt- 
ing to  show  that  the  witnesses  are  incom- 
petent by  reason  of  prejudice  or  self-interest. 
He  has  not  a  shadow  of  evidence  to  support 
his  allegation.  The  men  whose  testimony 
he  impeaches  are  well  known  in  this  com- 
munity, and  it  will  not  anywhere  be  believed 
that  their  testimony  can  be  invalidated.  That 
they  are  deeply  interested  in  this  prosecution 
as  officers  who  are  responsible  for  the  charac- 
ter of  the  teaching  which  the  congregation 
"over  which  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made 
them  overseers,"  shall  receive,  is  undoubtedly 
true.  If  it  were  not  true,  then  indeed  might 
their  evidence  be  regarded  as  of  little  value  ; 
but  that  they  are  prejudiced,  is  utterly  untrue, 
and  is  not  to  be  entertained  for  a  moment. 
The  only  witnesses  for  the  prosecutor  who 
gave  his  case  any  shadow  of  support  were 
Mr.  Goudy  and  Mr.  Miller.  I  have  not 
sought,  nor  have  I  ever  had  a  thought  of 
seeking,  to  discredit  their  testimony.  One  of 
these  gentlemen  I  know  well,  and  esteem 
highly.  I  think  both  of  them  will  regard 
me  as  doing  them  a  favor,  if  I  say  they  do 
not  range  themselves  among  the  admirers  of 
Prof.  Swing  ;  but  their  testimony  is  not  to  be 
questioned  for  a  moment  on  account  of  pre- 
judice. It  is  to  be  taken  for  what  it  is 
worth — for  all  that  it  contains.  Neither  is 
the  testimony  of  the  Fourth  Church  elders  to 
be  questioned. 

Perhaps  I  ought  to  say  a  word  of  the  testi- 
mony of  Mr.  Shufeldt ;  but  it  shall  be  only  a 
word.  I  do  not  imagine  that  any  member 
of  this  court  regards  that  testimony  as  estab- 
lishing anything.  Mr.  Shufeldt  confessed 
that  his  recollection  was  very  uncertain. 
While  he  was  sure  that  certain  branches  of  the 
tree  were  broken  off,  yet  whether  those 
branches  represented  an}'  of  the  pofnts  of 
Calvinism,  was  a  matter  of  doubt. 

And  now,  Mr.  Moderator,  before  I  pro- 
ceed to  speak  of  certain  points  of  the 
argument  of  the  prosecutor,  there  are  some 
other  matters  to  which  I  must  refer  as 
having  a  decided  bearing  upon  this  case.  It 
is  my  duty  to  refer  to  certain  facts  which  are 
properly  a  part  of  the  history  of  this  case  ; 
and  oneof  these  matters  of  history  is,  thatdur- 
ing  all  the  long  period  which  intervened  be- 
tween the  first  opening  of  the  newspaper  dis- 
cussion on  inspiration,  and  the  submission  of 


charges  against  the  defendant,  the  prosecutor 
never  once  went  to  Prof.  Swing  to  try  the  ef- 
fect of  a  fraternal  conference  in  bringing  them 
into  fraternal  and  doctrinal  agreement.  I 
am  aware  that  he  says  it  was  not  a  private, 
but  a  public  offence  with  which  Prof.  Swing 
was  charged.  But  this  plea  fails  to  meet  the 
facts  of  the  case,  as  I  shall  show.  The  specifi- 
cation which  connects  with  it  the  name  of  Mr. 
Collier  as  a  witness,  is  a  very  serious  matter. 
This  was  an  absolutely  private  affair.  The  pre- 
tended admission  to  Collier,  was  not  known 
at  all  to  the  world,  until  the  prosecutor  made 
it  known.  Probably  not  ten  persons  in  this 
city,  nor  out  of  it,  had  ever  heard  of  the  in- 
famous falsehood.  The  publication  of  it  was 
wholly  the  prosecutor's  own  act.  Such  a 
charge  if  proved  true,  would  blast  the  name 
of  any  man,  no  matter  how  potent  that  name 
might  previously  have  been.  But  who  is  the 
man  against  whom  this  grave  charge  is 
blurted  forth  to  the  world  ?  He  has  lived  in 
this  community  for  seven  years.  During  all 
this  time,  his  name  has  never  been  sullied  by 
the  breath  of  scandal.  Never  have  evil 
words  been  framed  against  him  until  they  were 
framed  into  this  indictment  by  the  prosecu- 
tor in  this  case,  and,  if  rumor  be  true,  by 
another  hand  that  is  said  to  have  lent  its  best 
cunning  for  the  work.  Of  accused  and  accu- 
sers, therefore,  the  words  of  Cowper  are 
strikingly  descriptive  : 

"  Assailed  by  scandal  and  the  tongue  of  strife, 
His  only  answer  was  a  blameless  life  ; 
And  he  that  forged,  and  he  that  threw  the  dart; 
Had  each  a  brother's  interest  in  his  heart." 

Mr.  Moderator,  this,  as  I  have  said,  was  a 
private  matter.  It  was  something  that  was 
not  known  to  the  world  ;  it  was  not  a  thing 
of  common  rumor.  And  when  we  remember 
that  it  is  an  inspired  declaration  that  a  "good 
name  is  rather  to  be  chosen  than  great 
riches,"  and  when  we  read  in  the  same  vol- 
ume of  living  truth,  that  "a  good  name  is 
better  than  precious  ointment,"  I  submit,  in 
view  of  these  divine  testimonies,  whether  the 
hasty  publication  of  this  report  was  not  a 
grievous  wrong  to  Prof.  Swing — a  serious 
breach  of  the  law  of  charity. 

I  must  also  put  on  record  an  expression  of 
my  regret  that  Prof.  Patton  did  not  feel 
moved  to  seek  a  conversation  with  the  elders 
of  the  Fourth  Church,  very  soon  after  he 
found  himself  wrestling  with  doubts  as  to 
Prof.  Swing's  orthodoxy ;  and  especially 
when,  at  a  later  day,    he  found  his  heart 


IlEV.  MR.  NOTES'  ARGUMENT. 


167 


burdened  with  the  fear  that  this  loved  pastor 
was  at  heart  an  unbeliever  in  evangelical 
doctrines,  and  a  dangerous  teacher.  He 
would  have  found  in  all  these  elders  very 
intelligent  christian  gentlemen,  who  'are 
keenly  alive,  not  only  to  the  good  name  of 
their  pastor,  but  also  to  the  welfare  of  their 
church,  and  to  the  interests  of  the  Presbyter- 
ian Church  at  large.  He  would  have  dis- 
covered that  they  are  discreet  in  counsel  and 
sound  in  the  faith.  They  would  have  given 
an  instant  and  a  respectful  hearing  to  the  ut- 
terance of  his  anxieties  and  fears.  And  con- 
eidering  the  danger  that  a  popular  pastor, 
going  astray  himself,  should  lead  his  people 
astray  also,  it  is  certainly  to  be  regretted  that 
Prof.  Patton  should  have  [entered  upon 
this  prosecution  without  so  much  as  attempt- 
ing a  mediation.  Surely  if  the  pastor  is  to 
be  given  up  as  hopeless,  it  were  worth  while 
to  try  and  save  the  church.  But  this  was 
not  done.  I  do  not  speak  of  these  things, 
Mr.  Moderator,  otherwise  than  with  sorrow. 
I  think  it  must  be  admitted  that  this  deplora- 
ble breach  of  the  peace,  which  we  witness 
now,  has  at  the  least  been  inconsiderately 
brought  about.  Every  means  of  private 
mediation  should  have  been  tried  and  exhaust- 
ed before  such  a  prosecution  as  this  had  been 
entered  upon. 

But  I  pass  from  these  animadversions 
which  I  have  no  pleasure  in  making,  but 
which  my  duty  in  this  case  requires  that  I 
should  make,  to  ask  your  attention  to  the 
argument  which  the  prosecutor  has  made  in 
support  of  his  indictment.  A^  an  honorable 
opponent,  I  am  glad  to  bear  witness  to  the 
ability,  if  not  to  the  fairness,  displayed  in  it. 
Grant  him  the  assumption  which  is  the  un- 
derlying basis  of  all  his  plea,  and  there  is 
no  escape  from  the  conclusion  to  which  that 
plea  conducts  you.  That  assumption  is,  that 
the  defendant  in  this  case  is  not  a  truthful 
and  honest  man.  If  the  members  of  this 
court  believe  this  assumption  of  the  prose- 
cutor, then  this  present  indictment  should 
be  dismissed  and  a  new  one  framed,  on 
which  the  defendant  should  be  charged  with 
falsehood.  But  I  know  they  do  not  believe 
this  ;  and  it  is  a  little  singular  that  the  pros- 
ecutor should  distinctly  declare,  as  he  did  on 
the  last  day  of  his  argument,  that  he  did  not 
believe  the  respondent's  declaration  before 
the  Presbytery,  at  the  opening  of  this  trial. 
For  many  months  previously  he  had  appeal- 
ed to  him  throusrh  the  Interior  to  give  to  the 


world  an  explicit  affirmation  that  he  did  hold 
the  evangelical  creed,  and  then  he,  the  pros- 
ecutor, would  be  satisfied.  "When  at  last, 
however,  an  opportunity  was  otlered  and  im- 
proved for  making  that  explicit  avowal,  the 
prosecutor  characterized  it,  as  you,  Mr. 
Moderator,  will  remember,  as  "a  candid 
statement."  But  it  seems  that  a  candid  state- 
ment may  also  be  a  deliberately  false  state- 
ment. For  Prof.  Patton  now  declares  that 
he  does  not  believe  the  defendant.  And  it  is 
this  conviction  of  his  insincerity  and  un- 
truthfulness, which  is  the  animus  of  this 
whole  prosecution.  It  is  this  assumption  which 
lies  at  the  very  foundation  of  the  prosecu- 
tor's whole  argument,  and  which  is  the  only 
support  that  it  has.  Prof.  Swing's  sermons 
readily  and  naturally  admit  of  an  evangelic- 
al meaning.  They  not  only  admit  of  that, 
but  they  are  full  of  gospel  teaching,  and 
they  could  not  convey  any  other  than  an 
evangelical  meaning,  except  by  torturing 
and  perverting  the  language  in  which  these 
sermons  are  expressed.  His  elders  testify 
that  he  preaches  the  same  doctrines  that 
they  have  heard  all  their  lives  from  Presby- 
terian pulpits ;  and  yet,  in  the  face  of 
all  these  testimonies,  the  prosecutor  labors 
through  three  days  to  prove  that  the  defend- 
ant is  not  evangelical.  I  submit  that  such 
an  argument,  however  plausible  and  bril- 
liant, does  not  challenge  any  very  serious 
consideration.  The  argument  cannot  be  true 
if  the  defendant  is  true  ;  and  the  defendant 
cannot  be  true  if  the  argument  is  true.  And 
in  either  event  there  is  no  case  on  this  in- 
dictment. But  there  are  some  considera- 
tions which  the  prosecutor's  argument  sug- 
gests, and  which  are  of  great  importance  in 
their  bearing  upon  a  right  adjudication  of 
this  case.  One  of  these  considerations  is, 
that  every  man's  words  should  be  interpret- 
ed with  constant  reference  to  the  relations 
which  he  may  sustain  toward  any  body  of 
Christians.  Language  spoken  by  a  Unitari- 
an, would  not  be  used  to  convey  the  meaning 
which  the  same  words,  when  employed  by  a 
Presbyterian  minister,  would  be  designed  to 
convey.  The  standpoint  of  the  twr>  men 
being  different,  their  views  will  be  difl'erent 
on  vital  matters,  even  though  those  views 
may  be  expressed  in  substantially  the  same 
language. 

Mr.  Moderator,  Idonot  exactly  know,  but 
I  have  an  impression  that,  in  your  preaching, 
you  generally  speak  of  the  divinity  of  Christ 


168 


THE  TPvIAL  OP  KEY.  DAVID  SWING. 


and  seldom  or  never  of  the  deity  of  Christ. 
Shall  we,  therefore,  begin  Ijo  suspect  you, 
and  whisper  our  fears  to  one  another  with 
hated  breath,  or  publish  our  doubts  in  a 
newspaper?  If  you  do  say  "Divinity  of 
Christ,"  then  you  say  no  more  than  a  Uni- 
tarian would  say.  No,  sir.  Divinity  of 
Christ  means,  from  your  lips  and  from  the 
lips  of  Prof.  Swing,  one  thing,  while  from 
the  pen  of  James  Freeman  Clarke  it  means 
quite  another  thing. 

These  statements,  so  obviously  true,  will 
help  us  to  see  howgrossly  unfair  the  prosecu- 
tor has  been  in  attempting  to  trace  an  iden- 
tity of  views  between  Professor  Swing  and 
Unitarian  thinkers,  because  they  alike  use 
certain  terms,  such  as  "Divinity  of  Christ," 
and  calling  Christ  "  Divine"  and  '-Saviour." 
These  are  the  very  terms  which  Presbyte- 
rian ministers  use,  so  far  as  I  know,  uni- 
versally. It  is,  then,  to  the  last  degree  unjust, 
to  single  out  one  of  them  and  undertake  to 
disgrace  him  before  the  church  for  using 
those  terms  which  are  the  common  speech  of 
our  ministry.  Not  less  unworthy  and  re- 
prehensible were  the  efforts  of  the  prosecutor 
to  establish  a  similarity  of  views  between 
Professor  Swing,  on  the  one  hand,  and  such 
men  as  Tylor  and  Lubbock,  on  the  other ; 
and  especially  when,  in  charging  Professor 
Swing  with  holding  to  the  development 
theory,  he  charges  him  with  holding  to  noth- 
ing more  than  what  is  taught  in  the  last 
number  of  the  Princeton  Revieio,  which, 
I  believe,  has  been  generally  regarded  among 
Presbyterians  as  a  very  Castalian  fount  of 
orthodoxy.  I  read  from  an  article  by  Dr. 
Henry  B.  Smith,  one  of  the  profoundest  the- 
ologians, one  of  the  most  noble  and  mature 
Christian  men  in  the  Presbyterian  or  any 
other  church.     He  says  on  page  280  : 

The  very  law  of  evolution  itself,  (at  least 
so  far  at  it  has  been  at  all  verified,)  when  ap- 
plied to  human  history,  might  at  least  give 
as  much  probability  to  the  further  develop- 
ment of  Christianity  as  to  its  extinction. 
Christianity  has  undeniably  been  evolved  in 
human  history,  and  has,  in  fact,  largely  or- 
ganized it.  It  has  all  the  criteria  of  a  de- 
velopment as  these  are  given  by  evolutionists 
themselves — inward  force,  natural  selection, 
survival  of  the  fittest.  Who  knows  its  re- 
serve of  might,  its  latent  possibilities  ?  The 
experience  of  the  past  would  seem  to  favor 
the  confident  prediction  of  greater  marvels 
yet  to  come,  liut  if  evolution  may  in  any 
case  be  so  far  arrested  or  completed  that  it 
can  stop,  for  example,  with  man  as  the  sum- 
mit and  acme  of  creation,  then  why  may  it 
not  have  reached  its  height  so  far  as  religion 


is  concerned,  in  Christianity  ?  If  it  may 
carry  on  man,  substantially  as  he  is,  to  a 
more  perfect  development,  why  not  the 
Christian  system  also  ? 

Professor  Patton  does  not  believe  that  the 
Christian  system  can  be  advanced  to  any 
greater  degree  of  perfection  than  it  has  at- 
tained now.  But  evidently  Dr.  Smith 
does  not  bow  down  as  an  idolater  before  any 
system  of  theology,  however  excellent,  and 
pronounce  it  perfect.  Manifestly  he  believes 
that  progress  may  be  made  in  the  statement 
of  Christian  doctrine.  For,  conceiving  of 
Christianity  both  as  doctrine,  and  as  a  reno- 
vating spiritual  power,  he  goes  on  to  ask: 

Who  can  set  bounds  to  its  indefinite  possi- 
bilities ?  May  it  not  be  so  applied  as  to  give 
a  rational  conviction,  that  that  august  Chris- 
tian faith,  which  is  by  common  concession 
the  highest  form  of  religion  may  go  on  con- 
quering and  to  conquer? 

Mr.  Moderator,  you  and  I,  because  we 
were  his  pupils,  and  because  we  love  and 
venerate  the  man,  would  not  like  to  see  Dr. 
Henry  B.  Smith  arraigned  for  heresy  ;  and 
yet  it  is  very  evident  from  the  passage  which 
I  have  read,  that  he,  too,  as  much  as  Profes- 
sor Swing,  "  has  used  language,  (see  specifi- 
cation seventh,)  which,  taken  in  its  plain  and 
obvious  sense,  inculcates  a  phase  of  doctrine 
commonly  known  as  Evolution  or  Develop- 
ment." But  interpret  the  language  of  both 
fairly,  remembering  the  end  they  have  in 
view  ;  remembering,  too,  their  ecclesiastical 
relations,  and  their  words  are  not  only  guilt- 
less of  heresy,  but  they  are  true. 

Mr.  Moderator,  during  our  late  civil  war, 
we  had  two  classes  of  men  among  us.  One 
class  comprised  the  mighty  multitude,  and 
the  other,  a  comparatively  small  handful  of 
people.  Both  classes  talked  of  loyalty  and 
devotion  to  the  country  and  love  for  the  flag. 
But,  sir,  this  language,  though  the  same,  was 
not  the  same.  It  did  not  mean  the  same 
thing;  and,  in  order  to  be  certain  what  it 
did  mean,  you  had  first  to  ascertain  to  which 
of  the  two  classes  the  speaker  belonged. 
When  you  knew  whether  he  belonged  to  the 
party  of  Unionists  or  to  that  of  Southern 
sympathizers,  then  you  knew  what  he  meant 
by  loyalty  and  love  of  the  flag.  And  so  it  is 
with  respect  to  theological  divisions  to-day. 
You  must  interpret  a  man's  words  by  the 
relations  he  sustains.  There  is  not  a  minister 
in  this  Presbytery,  or  in  any  other  Presby- 
tery of  our  church,  that  would  stand  for  a 
moment  the  test  to  which  the  prosecutor  has 
subjected  Prof.  Swing.     There  is  not  one  of 


KEV.  MR.  NOYES'  AEGUMENT. 


169 


you  all,  brethren,  who  has  not,  time  and  time 
again,  uttered  paragraphs  substantially    the 
the  same  in  phraseology  as  those  which  any 
Unitarian  might  utter,   or  any  person   who 
held  to  the  Darwinian  or  Spencerian  theory 
of  development.     Prof.  Patton  says   he  be- 
lieves the  Gospel.     So  the  Free  Religionists 
say  the  same  thing.     Are   they,   therefore, 
alike  ?     God  forbid.     And  yet,  they  are,  if 
using  the  same  terms  makes  meK  alike.     Let 
us  not  hear  any  more  of  that  kind  of  plead- 
ing, so  wholly  irrelevent  to  the  case,  and  so 
unfair  to  the  defendant.     The  prosecutor  in 
his   argument  has  continually   charged   the 
defendant  with  using  such  terms  as  "equiv- 
ocal language;"    and  "ambiguous    expres- 
sions."    Now,  sir,  it  is  impossible  to  avoid 
such  language.     The  Bible  does  not  avoid  it. 
It  is  not  irreverent  nor  untrue  to  say  that  it 
is  simply  im-possible  for  God  or  man,  to  use 
an  expression  which  is  unequivocal  in  the 
sense  that  it  may  not  be  interpreted,  if  a  man 
will  undertake  so  to  do, — in  a  way  in  which 
it  was  not  designed  to   be  interpreted.     In 
the  prosecutor's  own  citations  from  the  wri- 
tings  of  Unitarian  thinkers  and   ministers 
the  terms  which  are  used  there,  and  which 
he  found  to  be  in  some  instances  the  same  as 
those  employed   by  Prof.  Swing,  there  was 
ambiguity  of  expression.      Does  he  believe 
that  James  Freeman  Clarke  uses  the  phrase, 
"The  deity  of  Christ,"  in  the  same  sense  in 
which  he  uses  it?     If  he  does,  then  he  may 
perhaps  say  that  the  language  is  not  equivo- 
cal, but  we,  who  would  not  be  led   to  take 
such  a  view,  would  be  compelled  to  regard  it 
as  equivocal.     And  it  is  a  noticeable  feet  in 
this  connection  that  while  the  defendant,  ac- 
cording to  the  charge  of  Prof.   Patton,  has 
almost  constantly  made  use  of  equivocal  and 
ambiguous  language,  yet  in  all  but  one  or 
two   instances,    the   prosecutor   himself    has 
claimed  to  know  precisely  what  he  means  by 
this  equivocal  language.     This  is  very  singu- 
lar !     Language,  Mr.  Moderator,  ceases  alto- 
gether to  be  a  trustworthy  vehicle  of  thought, 
when  handled  as  Prof.  Swing's  language  has 
been  handled  by  the  prosecutor  in  his  argu- 
ment. 

I  shall  detain  you  but  a  little  while  longer, 
and,  at  this  point,  I  desire  to  call  your  atten- 
tion, respectfully,  to  certain  principles  whose 
justice  will  be  obvious  to  you  all — principles 
which  are  well  known  to  every  member  of 
this  court,  but  to  which  it  may,  never- 
theless, be  proper  for  me  to  call  their  atten- 


tion at  this  time.  One  of  thes3  principles  is, 
that  in  judging  this  case  your  verdict  should 
bo  made  up  from  the  evidence  and  not  from 
the  argument.  I  have  been  detaining  you  in 
these  sessions  for  long  and  weary  hours,  that 
I  might  present  before  you  the  evidence. 
The  prosecutor,  on  the  other  hand,  has  been 
detaining  you  in  these  sessions  for  a  much 
longer  period  of  time,  that  he  might  present 
before  you  argument,  and  for  the  reason  that 
he  had  nothing  but  argument  to  offer — no 
evidence.  And  now  I  ask  that  you  will  give 
heed  to  this  plain  and  righteous  principle 
that  the  verdict  you  render  should  be  upon 
the  evidence  that  has  been  submitted,  and  not 
upon  the  arguments  which  may  have  been 
offered,  whether  by  the  prosecution  or  by  the 
defense. 

Another  principle   which   prevails  in  all 
civil  practice,  I  believe,  is  to  the  effect  that, 
even  though  a  juror  may  be  morally  sure  in 
his  own  mind  of  a  defendant's  guilt,  yet  his 
verdict  is   to   be,  not   upon  his  convictions, 
however  they  may  have  been  formed,  unless 
they  have  been  formed  upon  the  evidence  alone. 
Hence   we  have  no  right   to   come  into  this 
court  bringing  our  prepossessions  or  our  prej  u- 
dices  with  us.     We   have  no   right  to  allow 
our  prepossessions  in  behalf  of  the  defendant 
to  determine  our  verdict,  and  still  less,  if  pos- 
sible, have  we  a  right  to  allow  our  prejudices 
against  the  defendant  to  enter  into  the   mak- 
ing up  of  that   verdict.     The   mind   should 
come  to  this  case  as  a  blank,  without  inclina- 
tion to  the  one  side  or  to  the  other.     I  think 
I  am  but  stating  fairly  the  principles  which 
should  govern  your  action   in   this-  case.     I 
desire  not  to  prejudice  your  minds — to  incline 
you  to  lean  to  the  one  side  or  to  the  other.    I 
only  ask  that  the  verdict  of  every  member  of 
this  court  shall  be  rendered  upon  the  evidence 
submitted,  and   upon   that   alone;   and  that 
must  be  judged  by  the  mind,  as  freed  from 
the  prejudices  or  prepossessions  which  it  may 
have  brought  into  this  court. 

And  now  I  have  a  word  or  iwo  to  say  as 
to  the  degree  of  liberty  which  is  to  be  allowed 
in  the  Presbyterian  Church ;  and,  as  having 
an  obvious  bearing  upon  this  point,  I  will 
read  a  passage  from  the  same  article  from 
which  I  read  a  moment  ago,  in  the  April 
number  of  The  Princeton  Review,  page  279. 
The  article  is  by  Dr.  Henry  B.  Smith,  upon 
"The   New   Faith   of  Strauss."     He   says: 

Christianity  is  not  founded  in  creeds  or  dog- 
mas.    To  a  certain  extent,  Hume's  sarcasm  is 


170 


TUE  TEIAL  OF  REV.  DAVID  SWING. 


true,  that  'Christianity  is  not  founded  in  argu- 
ment.' The  facts  of  ourfoith  antedate  its  dog- 
mas. The  dogmas  do  not  make,  but  express, 
the  facts.  All  the  human  creeds  that  were 
ever  framed,  are  but  partial,  fragmentary  ex- 
pressions of  the  Great  Original. 

And  it  is  made  by  the  prosecutor  a  very 
serious  offense  on  the  part  of  Prof.  Swing, 
that  he  has  used  just  such  language  as  this, 
with  special  reference  to  the  Westminster 
Confession  of  Faith; 

All  the  human  creeds  that  were  ever 
framed  are  but  fragmentary  expressions  of 
the  Great  Original ;  reflected  and  broken 
lights  of  that  one  Light  which  lighteth 
every  man  that  cometh  into  the  world. 
Christianity — would  that  we  could  see  and 
grasp  the  distinction — Christianity  is  not  a 
creed,  not  a  dogma,  not  a  system  of  theolo- 
gy, but  it  is  essentially  historic  fact — a  sub- 
lime incarnated  spiritual  reality. 

It  is  as  unrivaled  and  unique  in  human 
history  as  is  the  sacred  Person  of  its  head 
and  center  ;  it  is,  as  the  faith  of  the  Church 
declares,  the  living  presence  of  that  Person 
in  history  itself.  The  living  Christ  stands 
first  and  central ;  and  then  His  apostles,  and 
then  the  Church,  and  then  the  simple  creed. 

We  are  moving  off  step  by  step,  further 
and  further  away  from  that  one  thing  which 
is  needful. 

And  then  the  canon,  and  then  the  con- 
flicts, and  then  the  dogmas,  and  then  the 
systems  of  theology  ;  and  so  on  through  the 
centuries,  and  in  and  through  all,  a  living, 
spiritual  life,  comparable  only  to  the  life  of 
nature.  And  last  of  allj  last  of  all,  come 
they  also  who  say  that  its  very  substance  is 
found  in  creeds  and  contradictory  dogmas, 
which  can  be  upset  by  a  sneer.  And  this 
Christianity,  so  sublime  as  an  objective  fact, 
becomes  subjectively  a  renovating  power — 
the  life  of  God  in  the  soul  of  man — the 
mysterictus  consciousness  of  an  unearthly 
presence  in  the  soul — God  in  Christ  recon- 
ciling the  world  unto  Himself;  the  highest 
form  of  spiritual  life,  no  more  dependent  on 
theories  and  critics  thin  is  the  health  of  the 
body  upon  the  speculations  of  physiologists 
and  pathologists.  And  this  victorious  faith, 
and  this  intense  spiritual  conviction  are  no 
more  made  in  the  way  which  such  criticism 
represents,  than  the  life  of  the  earth  or  its 
evolutions,  by  the  theories  of  geologists  and 
scientists.  A  state  cannot  be  overthrown  by 
refuting  the  schemes  of  publicists,  for  the 
state  lives  and  grows  by  its  own  law ;  and 
Christianity  was  made  by  the  Maker  of  his- 
tory. 

Rev.  Olen  Wood. — Is  that  out  of  the  Lake- 
side Monthly? 

Rev.  Mr.  Noyes. — No,  sir  ;  it  is  out  of  the 
Princeton  Review. 

Rev.  Glen  Wood. — Is  that  Swing  ? 

Rev.  Mr.  Noyes. — No,  sir;  it  is  Henry  B. 
Smith, 


Rev.  Glen  Wood. — Can't  you  make  Swing 
out  of  it  ? 

Rev.  Mr.  Noyes. — I  leave  that  for  the  court 
to  do,  believing  that  they  can  and  will  make 
it  and  the  defendant  in  this  case  Swing  clear 
of  heresy. 

On  motion  of  Kev.  Mr.  McLeod  the  Pres- 
bytery took  a  recess  until  2  P.  M. 

The  Presbytery  re-assembled  at  2  o'clock 
P.  M. 

After  some  preliminary  business  the  coun- 
sel for  the  defense  continued  his  argument. 

Mr.  Moderator  :  It  will  only  be  in  the  way 
of  suggesting  a  new  reason  for  entertaining 
the  motion  made  by  Brother  Wisner,  if  I 
call  attention  to  the  fact  that  it  seems  not 
yet  to  be  understood  what  is  the  position — 
the  doctrinal  position  of  Prof.  Swing  before 
this  body.  We  have  been  told  that  he  omit- 
ted altogether  to  state  his  creed,  and  that  it 
is  not  possible  to  find  out,  from  the  declara- 
tion which  he  has  made  before  this  body, 
what  his  views  really  are  ;  and  for  the  rea- 
son, as  is  alleged,  that  he  has  not  given  any 
distinct  statement  of  his  belief,  but  has  sim- 
ply said  on  what  grounds  he  would  be  ready 
to  meet  the  skeptical  world,  and  the  educated 
world,  and  the  sinful  world.  And  so  it  will 
seem  to  you  a  new  and  strong  reason  for  con- 
sidering whether  we  ought  not,  for  the  sake 
of  avoiding  ambiguity,  to  reject  the  English 
language  which  we  have  been  accustomed  to 
use  since  we  were  born,  and  adopt  instead 
the  German,  which,  as  our  brother  Wisner 
testifies,  is  a  trustworthy  and  accurate  me- 
dium for  the  communication  of  thought. 

To  correct  this  strange  impression  that 
Prof.  Swing  has  avowed  no  doctrinal  belief 
before  this  body,  I  will  read  from  his  declara- 
tion, page  324,  new  edition  "Truths  for  To- 
day." 

Beloved  Brethren,  holding  the  general 
creed  asrendered  by  the  former  New  School 
Theologians,  I  will,  in  addition  to  such  a 
general  statement,  repeat  to  you  articles  of 
belief  upon  which  I  am  willing  to  meet  the 
educated  world,  and  the  skeptical  world,  and 
the  sinful  world,  using  my  words  in  the 
evangelical  sense:  The  inspiration  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  the  Trinity,  the  divinity  of 
Christ,  the  office  of  Christ  as  a  mediator 
when  grasped  by  an  obedient  faith,  conver- 
sion by  God's  Spirit,  man's  natural  sinful- 
ness, and  the  final  separation  of  the  righteous 
and  wicked. 

I  have  now  read  before  you  an  outline  of 
my  public  method,  and  of  my  Christian 
creed. 

To  say  that  such  language  is  ambiguous 


REV.  MR.  NOTES'   ARGUMENT. 


171 


and  indefinite  is  grossly  and  willfully  to  mis- 
represent it.  It  can  be  misunderstood  only 
by  liim  who  wants  to  misunderstand  it. 

And  now  the  question  is,  shall  Prof.  Swing, 
as  a  Presbyterian  minister,  bo  allowed  to 
stand  upon  this  platform  which  he  has  laid 
down  as  containing  the  summary  of  the  doc- 
trines which  he  believes  ?  As  suggesting  the 
right  answer  to  this  question,  I  will 
read  from  the  Presbyterian  Memorial  vol- 
ume, page  543,  the  opinion,  as  there  record- 
ed, of  Dr.  Musgrave : 

You,  through  some  misrepresentations 
made  in  the  papers,  by  anonymous  writers 
especially,  received  an  impre.ssion  that  the 
Old  School  Church  will  tolerate  no  difference 
of  opinion  ;  that  we  are  obliged,  every  man 
as  before  his  God,  to  accept  the  ipnissima  ver- 
ba theory,  and  that  any  man  who  undertakes 
to  review  or  to  state,  or  to  illustrate  doctrines 
in  any  degree  different  from  those  of  Prince- 
ton, for  instance,  is  to  be  considered  as  a 
heretic,  and  to  be  disciplined.  Well,  we 
have  disabused  them  of  that.  "We  have  said, 
Brethren,  there  have  always  been  shades  of 
difference  in  the  Old  School  Church,  and  in 
a  body  of  such  intelligent  and  conscientious 
men,  there  must  of  necessity  be  difference  of 
opinion.  Why,  sir,  as  long  as  men  think  at 
all — and  may  the  day  never  come  when  one 
man  shall  think  for  all  the  rest — as  long  as 
men  think,  they  will  differ  in  some  respects. 
Now,  sir,  we  have  said  to  them  that  we  un- 
derstand that  there  is  to  be  allowed  in  the 
United  Church  a  reasonable  degree  of  liber- 
ty, that  men  are  not  to  be  made  offenders  for 
a  word  ;  and  that  we  will  not  encourage 
persecution,  or  needless  prosecution,  if  you 
prefer  it,  but  will  allow  just  such  liberty  in 
the  United  Church  as  has  been  freely  allow- 
ed in  the  Old  School  Branch  of  the  church. 

I  will  read  briefly  also  from  the  report  of 
the  committee  upon  reunion — the  proceedings 
of  the  committee  as  recorded  upon  page  279, 
and  which  is  to  the  same  effect  as  Dr.  Mus- 
grave's  language : 

At  the  same  time  that  we  mutually  inter- 
change these  guarantees  for  orthodoxy,  we 
mutually  interchange  guarantees  for  (-hris- 
tian  liberty.  Differences  always  have  ex- 
isted, and  been  allowed  in  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  in  Europe  and  America,  as  to  modes 
of  expressing  and  theorizing  within  the 
metes  and  bounds  of  the  one  accepted  system. 
What  exists  in  fact,  we  have  undertaken  to 
express  in  words.  To  put  into  exact  formu- 
las, what  opinions  should  be  allowed,  and 
what  interdicted  would  be  to  write  a  new 
Confession  of  Faith.  This,  neither  branch  of 
the  church  desires.  Your  committee  have 
assumed  no  such  work  of  supererogation  ; 
neither  have  they  made  compromises  or  con- 
cessions. They  append  no  codicils  to  the  old 
symbols.  They  have  asserted,  as  being  essen- 
tial to  all  true  unity,  the  necessity  of  adopt- 


ing the  same  Confession,  and  the  same  sys- 
tem with  the  recognition  of  liberty  on  either 
hand,  for  such  differences  as  do  not  impair 
the  integrity  of  the  system  itself. 

Now,  Mr.  Moderator,  in  view  of  these  tes- 
timonies,— in  view  of  the  passage  which  I 
read  at  the  morning  session  from  the  latest 
number  of  the  Princeton  Review,  I  submit 
whether  it  is  proper  and  respectful  for  the 
prosecutor  in  this  case  to  come  before  this 
body  and  declare,  as  he  did  in  the  opening  of 
his  argument,  that  if  you  were  loyal  Presby- 
ters, you  would  have  resented  on  the  spot  the 
declaration  which  the  defendant  made  before 
you  at  the  opening  of  the  trial.  The  defen- 
dant unqualifiedly  declares  himself  to  be, 
what  was  known  before  the  reunion,  as  a  New 
School  Presbyterian.  There  is  not  one  soli- 
tary fact  in  evidence  before  you  to  show  that 
he  is  not  what  he  claims  to  be  :  and  there  are 
many  facts  in  evidence  to  support  his  claim. 
To  say,  therefore,  that  this  trial  does  not 
bring  up  the  old  issues  of  New  and  Old 
School,  is  to  say  what  all  the  intelligent 
world  knows  to  be  contrary  to  the  fact.  It 
does  bring  up  these  issues.  These  are  the 
only  issues  that  are  before  this  body.  And  I 
say  here,  under  a  deep  sense  of  personal  re- 
sponsibility to  God,  that  if  the  respondent  in 
this  case  is  to  be  comdemned  on  the  doctrinal 
platform  which  he  has  distinctly  laid  down 
before  you, — while  I  do  not  speak  at  all  in 
the  language  of  threat,  but  only  in  the  lan- 
guage of  sorrowful  foreboding  and  prophecy, 
— I  believe  it  will  rend  again  this  church 
which  has  so  recently  and  so  happily  been 
reunited. 

And  now  I  ask,  in  conclusion,  that  the 
printed  and  oral  evidence  which  has  been 
submitted  in  this  case,  may  be  adjudicated 
upon  with  special  and  constant  reference  to 
those  principles  which  are  laid  down  in  the 
decision  of  the  General  Assembly  upon  the 
case  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Craighead,  New  School 
Digest,  page  304.  Those  principles  are  in 
these  words  : 

Here  it  will  be  important  to  remark  that 
a  man  cannot  fairly  be  convicted  of  heresy 
for  using  expressions  which  may  be  so  inci-r- 
preted  as  to  involve  heretical  doctrines,  if 
they  may  also  admit  of  a  more  favorable  con- 
struction. 

And  the  only  favorable  or  fair  construc- 
tion of  the  defendant's  words,  as  they  have 
been  read  in  evidence,  is  that  which  puts 
him  in  harmony  with  the  evangelical  doc- 
trines. 

Because   no  one  can  tell    in   what  sense 


172 


THE  TKIAL  OF  KEY.  DAVID  SWING. 


an  ambiguous  expression  is  used  but  the 
speaker  or  writer,  and  he  has  a  right  to 
explain  himself ;  and  in  such  cases,  candor 
requires  that  a  court  should  favor  the  accused 
by  putting  on  his  words  the  more  favorable, 
rather  than  the  less  favorable  construction. 

Now,  I  ask  that  this  body  keep  in  mind 
that  rule  which  requires — it  is  a  rule  laid 
down  by  the  General  Assembly — which 
requires  that  they  put  upon  the  words  of  the 
respondent  the  more  favorable  rather  than 
the  less  favorable  construction. 

The  other  principle  is  this:  "  That  no 
man  can  rightly  be  convicted  of  heresy  by 
inference  or  implication,  that  is,  we  must 
not  charge  the  accused  person  with  holding 
those  consequences  which  may  legitimately 
flow  from  his  assertions.  Many  men  are 
grossly  inconsistent  with  themselves,  and, 
while  it  is  right  in  argument  to  over- 
throw false  opinions,  by  tracing  them  in 
their  connections  and  consequences,  it  is  not 
right  to  charge  any  man  with  an  opinion 
■which  he  disavows."  And  certainly  this 
body  will  endorse  that  as  a  sound  principle. 
It  is  not  right  to  charge  any  man,  least  of 
all  a  Christian  minister,  with  an  opinion 
which  he  disavows. 

And  this  naturally  brings  up  the  other 
principle,  or  fact,  in  view  of  which  I  desire 
that  this  court  shall  make  up  its  verdict : 
That  fact  is,  the  respondent's  own  declaration ; 
which  is  to  the  effect  that  he  does  receive,  and 
receive  in  their  evangelical  sense,  the  very 
doctrines  for  rejecting  which  (or  for  omit- 
ting to  teach  which,)  he  has  been  arraigned 
at  your  bar. 

Nothing,  certainly,  but  the  clearest  and 
most  convincing  evidence  of  falsehood,  should 
induce  you,  or  any  of  you,  to  discredit  the 
declaration  of  belief  which  Prof.  Swing  has 
formally  made  before  you.  The  prosecutor's 
quotations  from  his  sermons,  garbled  as  they 
have  been  throughout,  should  be  such  as 
absolutely  to  forbid  any  evangelical  inter- 
pretation, in  order  to  justify  a  verdict  of 
guilty  on  your  part.  But  not  only  do  they 
not  forbid  any  such  interpretation,  but  they 
require  it.  They  will  fairly  admit  of  no 
other.  The  heretical  construction  of  Prof. 
Swing's  words  is,  in  every  instance  cited  by 
the  prosecutor,  the  violent  construction  of 
them.  The  Jair  interpretation  of  them  is 
that  which  yields  an  evangelical  meaning. 
And  so  his  printed  discourses,  so  far  from 
furnishing  any  material  on  which  to  base  a 
denial  of  his  declaration,  do  in  reality  support 


and  confirm  that  declaration.  And  I  see  not 
how  any  verdict  of  guilty  can  be  given, 
except  by  a  disregard  both  of  the  defendant's 
explicit  avowal  of  his  faith,  and  also  of  the 
evidence  which  I  have  drawn  so  copiously 
from  his  printed  sermons. 

In  making  up  your  verdict,  you  will  also 
allow  great  and  deserved  weight  to  be  given, 
in  your  own  minds,  to  the  testimony  which 
has  been  submitted  by  the  Elders  of  the 
Fourth  Church.  Their  testimony  is  con- 
firmatory, in  every  word  and  line,  of  the 
documentary  evidence.  The  chosen  and 
ordained  officers  of  the  chiirch.to  which  Prof. 
Swing  so  acceptably  ministers,  charged  with 
the  care  of  its  spiritual  interests,  by  them, 
certainly,  if  by  any  body,  Prof.  Swing's 
ministerial  unfaithfulness  and  his  doctrinal 
unsoundness  could  be  proved.  But  on  the 
contrary,  they  unanimously  testify  to  Prof. 
Swing's  faithfulness  as  a  minister,  and  to  his 
soundness  as  a  teacher.  These,  then,  are  the 
principles  and  facts  which,  as  I  respectfully 
submit,  should  guide  the  members  of  this 
covirt  to  their  verdict — the  rules  in  the 
Craighead  case.  Prof.  Swing's  declaration, 
the  docvimentary  evidence,  and  the  confirm- 
atory testimony  of  the  Elders.  With  any 
verdict  having  such  a  basis  as  this,  I  shall 
be  abundantly  satisfied. 

I  cannot  conclude  this  long  argument, 
without  a  few  words  of  reference  to  ambi- 
guity of  language — a  phrase  which  has  played 
so  conspicuous  a  part  in  the  prosecutor's 
charges  and  specifications  and  argument. 
Whatever  may  be  the  defendant's  sins  in 
this  regard,  he  certainly  is  not  a  sinner  above 
all  others.  It  is  the  chronic  complaint  of  the 
prosecutor  that  Prof.  Swing  is  ambiguous.  But 
that  Prof.  Patton  needs  to  be  told,  "Physician, 
heal  thyself,"  will,  I  think,  be  manifest  to  all, 
when  I  recall  an  incident  of  this  trial.  He 
has  put  upon  the  records  of  this  court  his 
formal  protest  against  the  action  of  the 
Judicial  Committee  in  daring  to  amend  his 
indictment,  after  it  had  once  been  presented. 
But  in  one  particular,  he  himself  was  very 
anxious  to  amend  it,  without  any  suggestion 
from  the  Judicial  Committee.  Strange  as  it 
may  seem,  he,  a  critic  of  otheirs,  had  exposed 
himself  to  be  roughly  criticised  by  others. 
He  had  used  ambiguous  language  !  Though 
drawing  up  a  criminal  indictment,  when,  if 
ever,  we  should  expect  to  find  absolute  pre- 
cision in  the  use  of  language,  yet  he  was  so 
remarkably  ambiguous  that  even  his  warm- 


PROF.  PATTON'S  CLOSING  ARGUMENT. 


173 


est  friends — who  had  every  desire  to  treat 
him  fairly — understood  him  to  declare  that 
Mary  Price  Collier  was  not  a  believer  in  the 
Christian  religion.  Mr.  Moderator,  I  regard 
this  as  a  providential  blunder  on  the  part  of 
the  prosecutor.  It  ought  to  bring  home  to 
him  the  lesson  conveyed  in  the  familiar 
couplet : 

"  That  mercy  I  to  others  show 
That  mercy  show  to  me." 

If  it  is  proposed  to  censure  Prof.  Swing 
for  using  equivocal  language,  then  by  every 
consideration  of  fair  dealing,  that  vote  of 
censure  ought  to  Include  his  prosecutor  ;  for 
of  sinners  in  this  regard,  he  is  chief.  And, 
as  he  came  into  this  court  and  asked,  with 
pitiful  appeal,  that  he  might  be  protected 
from  the  misrepresentation  and  abuse  of  the 
secular  journals,  drawn  forth  by  reason  of 
his  ambiguous  language,  so  I  ask,  in  behalf 
of  the  defendant  in  this  case,  that  you  will 
protect  him,  by  the  verdict  that  you  shall 
render,  from  the  manifold  misrepresentations 
to  which  he  has  been  subjected  by  the  pro- 
secutor. Let  him  have  a  just  and  generous 
vindication. 

And  now,  Mr.  Moderator,  I  have  in  con- 


ducted myself  with  propriety,  is  not  the 
question;  and  I  leave  it  for  an  intelligent 
public  to  decide.  The  simple  question  is 
whether  Prof.  Swing  has  been  faithful  and 
diligent  in  maintaining  the  truths  of  the 
Gospel,  and  whether  he  receives  and  adopts 
the  Confession  of  Paith  of  this  church  as 
containing  the  system  of  doctrine  taught  in 
the  Word  of  God.  I  affirm  the  truth  of 
both  charges.  I  affirm  it  in  face  of 
the  argument  of  the  defense,  and  I  af- 
firm it  all  the  more,  sir,  in  view  of  the  two 
declarations  of  the  accused.  That  Professor 
Swing  is  in  the  habit  of  using  equivocal  lan- 
guage, is  a  point  that  has  not  been  covered 
by  the  defense,  and  I  shall  not  add  to  what 
I  have  said  on  that  subject.  That  he  has  de- 
rided the  standards  of  the  Presbyterian 
church,  is  a  point  which  has  not  been  cov- 
ered, and  I  shall  not  add  to  what  I  have  had 
to  say  on  that  subject.  There  are  some 
points  to  which  I  beg  leave  to  call  attention, 
and  to  which  I  shall  confine  my  remarks 
this  afternoon,  because  they  are  important 
points  in  this  case  ;  and  with  all  that  has  been 
said  both  by  Professor  Swing  and  Mr.  Noyes, 
I  beg  leave  to  reaffirm  the  proposition   con- 


clusion, but  just  one  word  to  offer,  and  that,    tained  in  the  fifth  specification,  as  also  prop. 


sir,  is  a  word  of  hearty  and  grateful  thanks 
to  yourself  for  the  Christian  fairness  which 
you  have  illustrated  in  all  your  rulings  in 
this  court ;  and  for  the  favor  which  you  have 
shown  to  the  defense — a  favor  which  has  in  no 
instance  been  one  of  partiality,  but  of  simple 
justice. 

I  thank  you,  also,  brethren  of  the  court, 
for  the  patient  and  candid  hearing  which 
you  have  given  to  my  argument. 

At  the  close  of  the  argument  of  Mr.  Noyes, 
in  behalf  of  the  accused,  Professor  Patton 
proceeded  to  reply. 

CLOSING  ARGUMENT   OF  THE  PROSECUTOR. 

Mr.  Moderator  :  I  proceed  with  my  argu- 
ment at  the  bidding  of  the  court,  remarking 
that  it  is  of  the  utmost  importance  that 
we  should  adhere  to  the  points  in  issue. 
Whether  the  Interior  is  an  orthodox  news- 
paper is  not  for  me,  in  this  place,  to  affirm — 
much  as  I  respect  the  organ.  Whether  Doc- 
tor Hodge  is  an  orthodox  man,  is  not  the 
question,  though  I  have  confidence  in  his  or- 
thodoxy. Whether  Dr.  Henry  B.  Smith  is  a 
sound  theologian  is  not  the  question,  though  I 
do  not  yield  an  inch  to  Brother  Noyes  in  iny 
admiration  of  him.  WTiether  I  have  been 
influenced  by  pure  motives,  or  have  con- 


ositions  contained  in  later  specifications. 
This  fifth  specification  sets  forth  that  Profes- 
sor Swing  has  omitted  to  preach  certain  doc- 
trines. The  defense  has  undertaken  to  prove 
that  he  does  preach  these  doctrines.  I 
claim  that  they  fail.  Now  let  us  read  that 
specification : 

Being  a  minister  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  and  preaching  to  the  Fourth  Pres- 
byterian Church  of  this  city,  he  has  omitted 
to  preach,  in  his  sermons,  the  doctrines  com- 
monly known  as  evangelical ;  that  is  to  say, 
in  particular  he  omits  to  preach  or  teach  one 
or  more  of  the  doctrines  indicated  in  the 
following  statements  of  scripture,  namely, 
that  Christ  is  a  "propitiation  for  our  sins," 
that  we  have  "redemption  through  His 
blood,"  that  we  are  "justified  by  faith,"  that 
"there  is  no  other  name  under  heaven  given 
among  men  whereby  we  may  be  saved," 
that  Jesus  is  "equal  with  God,"  and  is  "God 
manifest  in  the  fiesh,"  that  "all  Scripture  is 
given  by  inspiration  of  God,"  and  that  "the 
wicked  shall  go  away  into  everlasting  pun- 
ishment." 

Now,  if  the  defense  could  have  proved 
that  these  doctrines  are  taught  in  Prof. 
Swing's  sermons,  we  should  have  admit- 
ted that  this  specification,  at  all  events, 
must  be  dropped,  and  we  should  have  expect- 
ed the  charge  to  rest  upon  other  specifications, 


174 


THE  TKIAL  OF  EEV.  DAVID  SWING. 


though  even  then  the  charge  would  have  re- 
mained true.  Grant  that  it  were  proved 
that  Prof.  Swing  had  preached  every  one  of 
these  doctrines,  then  the  effect  of  that  proof 
would  have  simply  been  to  have  stricken  out 
the  fifth  specification  as  not  proven.  It  still 
would  have  remained  true,  that  the  other 
specifications  had  been  proved,  and  having 
been  proved,  that  they  sustain  the  charge. 

When  the  defense  undertook  to  prove  that 
the  fifth  specification  was  not  true — that  is 
to  say,  that  Prof.  Swing  did  preach  these 
doctrines — what  was  their  method  ?  They 
brought  the  elders  of  the  church  to  testify  to 
the  general  tone  of  his  preaching — to  give 
their  recollections  of  what  he  said — recollec- 
tions which  were  not  specific  as  to  time  or 
place  or  language.  When  they  were  asked 
to  bring  the  written  sermons  of  Prof. 
Swing,  it  having  been  previously  admitted 
that  these  sermons  were  all  in  manuscript, 
and  since  the  fire  still  in  existence,  they 
were  not  produced.  What  other  evidence 
did  they  rely  upon  ?  For  it  must  be  clear  to 
this  body  now  that,  so  far  as  the  testimony 
of  the  elders  of  the  Fourth  Presbyterian 
Church  has  reference  to  other  sermons  than 
those  which  are  set  forth  in  these  charges,  it 
is  not  relevant,  because  their  testimony  was 
secondary  evidence,  and  is  not  valuable  in 
view  of  the  fact  that  the  sermons  to  which 
they  refer  are  still  in  existence,  and  have 
not  been  brought  into  this  court.  Then,  if, 
when  they  undertook  to  prove  that  Prof. 
Swing  did  preach  these  doctrines  which  it  is 
alleged  he  did  not  preach,  and  when  the  best 
evidence  they  could  produce  was  the  testi- 
mony of  the  elders,  and  the  very  sermons 
which  are  offered  in  evidence,  it  is  perfectly 
fair  for  us  to  inquire  whether  these  sermons, 
as  they  stand  before  us,  are  such  sermons  as 
you,  Mr.  Moderator,  and  I,  and  you,  breth- 
ren, would  call  evangelical.  Now,  there 
they  are.  There  is  the  volume  called 
"Truths  for  To-day."  Here  are  the  sermons 
published  in  the  Chicago  Pulpit.  It  is  per- 
fectly fair  for  us  to  assume  that  these  are  the 
very  best  sermons  which  the  defense  can 
produce  of  Prof.  Swing's  preaching.  It  is 
fair  to  presume  that  so  tar  as  his  preaching 
claims  to  be  evangelical,  the  very  cream 
of  that  preaching  is  to  be  found  in  these 
two  volumes  because  it  being  alleged  that 
his  preaching  is  not  evangelical,  and  the 
burden  being  put  upon  them  to  prove 
that  it  is  evangelical,  it  is  fair  to   presume 


they  would  bring  the  very  best  testimony  in 
the  case,  and  if  this  is  the  best  showing  they 
can  make,  then  I  will  leave  it  with  this 
body  to  say  whether  it  is  what  they  call 
evangelical  preaching.  I  affirm  that  it  is 
not.  I  affirm  that  its  tendency  is  the  very 
reverse  of  that ;  and  I  will  leave  it  to  the 
judgment  of  those  who  read  these  sermons 
to  say  whether  that  kind  of  preaching  is  the 
preaching  that  is  to  bring  lost  sinners  to 
Jesus  Christ — is  the  preaching  to  convert 
men  and  build  up  saints  in  their  most  holy 
faith.     I  will  leave  it  for  you  to  say. 

But  the  defense  will  saj;^  that  is  not  the 
point  exactly.  They  will  say  that  the  aver- 
ment which  I  make  is  that  these  doctrines 
are  not  to  be  found  in  the  sermons.  Now 
what  do  I  say  ?  I  say  that  he  omits  to  teach 
or  to  preach  ^^one  or  more  of  the  doctrines  in- 
dicated in  the  following  passages  of  Scrip- 
ture." The  defense  confronted  us  with  some 
passages  yesterday  which  they  wish  us  to 
understand  as  absolute  and  unequivocal  ex- 
pressions of  evangelical  truth.  And  in  sin- 
gular confirmation  of  the  allegation  which 
I  made,  to  the  effect  that  Prof.  Swing  uses 
equivocal  language,  they  cite  the  very  pas- 
sages (some  of  them)  which  I  relied  upon  in 
order  to  establish  the  proposition. 

Now,  I  have  clipped  from  his  sermons 
passages  which  I  think  I  read  in  evidence, 
and  if  I  did  not  read  them,  I  certainly  meant 
to  read  them,  in  order  to  establish  that  very 
proposition  that  he  uses  equivocal  language — 
language  which,  though  it  may  have  an  or- 
thodox sound,  if  you  come  to  these  passages 
with  the  assumption  that  he  is  an  orthodox 
man,  is  nevertheless  language  that  is  quite  in 
keeping  with  Unitarian  theology,  and  which 
any  Unitarian  would  use.  I  think  I  quoted 
this  passage  :  "  When  your  best  works  fail, 
and  you  feel  their  worthlessness,  fly  to  Him, 
whose  cross  stands  between  you  and  God's 
wrath."  If  that  was  uttered  by  my  brother 
Young,  I  should  know  it  was  sound,  because 
I  know  his  theology  from  beginning  to  end, 
but  uttered  by  Prof.  Swing,  I  don't  know 
whether  it  is  sound.  That  is  just  the  differ- 
ence ;  uttered  by  Prof.  Swing,  I  cannot  tell 
whether  he  meant  that  in  the  evangelical 
sense,  or  not ;  and  the  reason  why  I  don't 
know,  is  because  I  know  his  theology  on 
other  points;  and  knowing  his  theology  upon 
those  other  points,  I  cannot  give  him  the 
benefit  of  a  favorable  presumption.  I  do  not 
assume,  by  a  great  deal,  sir,  thatheis  orthodox. 


PKOF.  PATTON'S  CLOSING  ARGUMENT. 


175 


Now  I  read  this  passage  also,  and  if  I  did 
not  read  it  in  evidence,  I  made  a  mistake. 

Truths  for  To-Day,  page  179. 

This  Christ  has  fulfilled  a  law  which  we 
have  broken,  and  to  us  no  longer  able  to  flee 
unto  ourselves  and  find  peace.  He  says  "Come 
unto  Me,  all  ye  who  hibi^r  and  are  heavy 
laden,  and  I  will  give  you  rest." 

Now,  I  don't  know  whether  that  passage 
means  that  Jesus  Christ  fulfilled  the  law  in 
my  place  or  not.  I  don't  know  whether  he 
meant  the  orthodox  view  of  that,  or  not,  but 
I  know  that  Unitarians  would  use  that  ex- 
pression, and  the  fact  that  he  uses  it  docs  not 
ipso  facto  prove  that  he  uses  it  in  our  sense — 
in  the  sense  used  by  the  Presbyterian 
Church.  And  so  with  a  great  many  other 
passages.  He  does  use  language,  in  some  in- 
stances which  has  an  orthodox  sound,  and 
which  does  seem,  if  left  alone,  to  be  ortho- 
dox; but  taken  in  connection  with  the 
context  —  taken  in  connection  with  all 
his  sermons,  understanding  what  he  has 
said  about  the  sacrifices  of  the  Jews,  know- 
ing what  he  has  said  about  Christ,  knowing 
what  he  has  said  in  his  sermon  on  "faith," 
knowing  what  he  said  in  his  sermon  on 
"good  works,"  knowing  what  he  believes  in 
respect  to  these  doctrines  which  have  been 
mentioned,  I  do  not  believe,  and  shall  not, 
until  he  teljs  me,  that  he  means  it  to  be 
understood  in  the  Presbyterian  sense.  Let 
it  be  even  granted  that  these  passages  which 
refer  to  the  sacrifices  of  Christ,  which  refer 
to  pardon,  and  which  refer  to  the  Atonement 
show  his  belief  in  those  doctrines.  Do  not 
Universalists  believe  in  pardon?  Do  they 
not  believe  in  an  at-one-ment  between  us  and 
God?  Does  the  use  of  the  word  at-one- 
ment  carry  an  idea  of  the  atonement  in  the 
sacrificial  sense?  Does  not  every  Unitarian 
in  the  house  believe  in  pardon  ?  Does  the 
fact  that  Prof.  Swing  uses  the  word  "par- 
don," and  the  word  "atonement"  carry 
the  idea  that  he  uses  the  word  pardon 
as  we  use  it?  There  is  a  diflerence  of 
opinion  as  to  what  the  word  atonement 
means.  Now  when  he  says  that  he  believes 
in  the  atonement,  it  is  an  expression  of  an 
equivocal  character;  and  I  am  not  warrant- 
ed in  assuming  that  when  he  uses  such  an  ex- 
pression, he  uses  it  in  an  orthodox  sense. 
But  suppose  for  the  sake  of  argument  (and 
only  for  the  sake  of  argument)  that  he  does 
use  these  expressions  in  an  orthodox  sense; 
it  is  still  true,  that  the  defense  has  not  oflfer- 
ed  evidence  to  set  aside  the  specification,  for 


they  have  not  showed  me  the  passage  yet 
which  I  asked  them  to  show,  where  Prof. 
Swing  makes  use  of  unequivocal  statements 
respecting  the  person  and  deity  of  Jesus 
Christ.     It  has  not  been  done. 

Now  let  me  read.  The  defense  read  the 
passage  which  I  read  myself  before  in  evi- 
dence on  the  subject  of  the  divineness  of 
Christ. 

Lets  us  approach  now  a  more  warmly  dis- 
puted proposition,  that  the  divineness  of 
Christ  is  something  essential  in  the  Christian 
system. 

Mr.  Noyes  wants  this  Presbytery  to  take 
for  granted  that  "divineness"  is  here  used 
in  the  sense  of  deity.  I  adhere  to  the  proposi- 
tion that  the  defense  has  not  yet  given  me  an 
unequivocal  statement  from  the  sermons 
preached  by  Prof.  Swing  to  the  efiect  that 
Christ  is  God.  It  is  not  here.  I  will  read 
the  passage  through.     I  read  from  page  78 : 

Let  us  approach  now  a  more  warmly  dis- 
puted proposition,  that  the  divineness  of 
Christ  is  something  essential  in  the  Christian 
system.  The  Trinity,  as  formally  stated, 
cannot  be  experienced.  Man  has  not  the 
power  to  taste  the  threeness  of  one,  nor  the 
oneness  of  three,  and  see  that  it  is  "good." 
Man  cannot  "  do  his  will"  here,  and  "  know 
of  the  doctrine  whether  it  be  of  God." 

Again  he  says,  page  79  : 

But  while  human  experience  cannot  ap- 
proach the  Trinity,  it  can  approach  the  di- 
vineness of  Christ ;  for,  if  Christ  be  not  di- 
vine, every  impulse  of  the  Christian  world 
falls  to  a  lower  octave,  and  light  and  love 
and  hope  alike  decline.  There  is  no  doctrine 
into  which  the  heart  may  so  interweave  itself 
and  find  anchorage  and  peace  as  in  this  di- 
vineness of  the  Lord.  Hence  Christianity 
bears  readily  the  idea  of  three  ofiices,  and 
permits  the  one  God  to  appear  in  Father,  or 
in  Son,  or  in  Spirit;  but  when  the  divine  is 
excluded  from  Christ,  and  he  is  left  a  mortal 
only,  the  heart,  robbed  of  the  place  where 
the  glory  of  God  was  once  seen,  and  where 
the  body  was  once  seen  rising  from  the  tomb, 
and  where  the  words  were  spoken,  "Come 
unto  me  ye  that  labor  and  are  heavy  laden," 
is  emptied  of  a  world  of  light  and  hope. 

Now  we  are  told  that  that  must  be  taken 
to  mean  the  deity  of  Christ.  I  do  not  say  it 
does  not  mean  the  deity  of  Christ,  but  1  do 
say  that  we  are  not  authorized  by  anything 
that  Prof.  Swing  has  said  to  say  it  means  the 
deity  of  Christ ;  for  when  I  see  repeatedly  in 
Prof.  Swing's  sermons  the  word  "divine" 
used  as  applicable  to  men  ;  when  in  the  ser- 
mon entitled  "Saint  Paul  and  the  Golden 
Age,"  "spirituality,"  as  an  attribute  of  the 
Christian  soul,  is  spoken  of  as  a  certain  "  di- 
vineness" of  soul,  and  when  in  another  ser- 


176 


THE  TEIAL  OF  KEY.  DAVID  SWING. 


toon,  "A  Religion  of  Words,"  the  following 
passage  occurs — "A  divine  being  and  a  few 
followers  may  announce  one,  but  the  world  is 
always  far  below  the  leading  divine  souls" — 
then  if  the  word  "divine"  is  used  in  refer- 
ence to  men,  and  the  same  word  is  used  in 
reference  to  Christ,  I  would  like  to  know  by 
what  laws  of  interpretation  I  am  bound  to 
believe  that  such  an  expression  when  used  in 
reference  to  man  means  man,  and  when  used 
in  reference  to  Christ  means  God.  And  I  am 
still  more  confirmed  in  my  doubt  respecting 
this  matter  by  the  passage  which  Mr.  Noyes 
himself  read  yesterday  in  proof  of  the  very 
proposition  of  which  I  stand  in  doubt.  I 
quote  from  the  sermon  entitled  "The  World's 
Great  Need,"  where,  speaking  of  Mr.  Hep- 
worth,  who  left  his  Unitarianism  because  he 
felt  that  his  Saviour  could  not  be  less  than 
God,  Prof.  Swing,  so  far  from  joining  with 
Christtndom  in  the  joy  that  a  man  had  left 
the  Unitarian  faith  and  had  come  out  into 
the  clear  daylight  of  God's  truth — instead  of 
rejoicing  in  that,  he  rather  regrets  that  he 
did  not  stay  behind  in  Unitarianism.  Now 
let  me  read  the  passage  : 

Mr.  Hepworth  excites  hope  only  in  this, 
that  he  has  kindled  a  little  better  central  sun 
for  his  heart — has  declared  Christ  to  be  di- 
vine, above  other  measure  of  divinity  be- 
lieved in  by  many  of  his  sects.  He  redoubles 
the  radiance,  and  the  warmth  of  that  charac- 
ter that  has  always  shone  in  rejuvenating, 
converting  power  upon  the  heart.  Men  look- 
ing upon  civilization  or  culture  only,  may 
not  be  reborn  in  spirit ;  but  looking  upon  a 
divine  Christ  in  love,  their  souls  are  aft'ected 
by  the  holiness  and  immortal  life  in  the 
great  vision. 

Instead  of  man's  revolving  around  human- 
ity, Mr.  Hepworth  invites  them  to  revolve 
about  the  Divine.  It  is  a  step  upward,  but 
not  an  espousal  of  orthodoxy,  not  even  a  de- 
parture from  the  old  Unitarian  Creed.  To 
preach  fully  his  gently  orthodox  ideas,  it 
seems  not  necessary  to  withdraw  from  asso- 
ciations long  and  sacred  ;  able  in  themselves 
to  clothe  his  words  with  power — for  the  creed 
of  his  denomination  embraces  his  ideas  in  its 
grandest  books,  and  many  are  the  hearts  in 
his  Society  that  are  willing  that  the  soul  of 
Channing  should  come  back  to  the  half-de- 
solate home.  I  feel  that  there  are  thousands 
in  the  Unitarian  body  who  are  willing,  even 
anxious,  to  have  a  common,  fallible  man 
plucked  from  the  centre  of  their  system,  and 
to  see  replaced  there  a  divine  Saviour,  draw- 
ing all  hearts  by  this  love  and  heavenly  at- 
tributes. 

He  says  there  are  Unitarians,  plenty  of 
them,  who  would  like  to  see  a  common  fal- 
lible man  plucked  from  the  centre  of  their 


sj-stem,  and  to  see  put  there  sucb  a  being  as 
Channing  worshipped.  Now,  sir,  the  anti- 
thesis between  Unitarianism  and  Presbyter- 
ianism  is  not  that  the  Unitarians  believe 
that  Christ  is  a  mere  man,  and  that  we  be- 
lieve that  Christ  is  God.  There  are  three 
distinct  opinions  on  the  subject  of  Christ. 
There  are  those  who  say  that  Christ  is  a 
man,  and  that  is  all.  There  are  those  who 
say  that  Christ  is  God,  and  those  who  say 
Christ  was  neither  man  nor  God  but  some- 
thing between  the  two.  Channing  believed 
the  last  of  these  propositions;  he  believed 
that  Christ  was  more  than  jnan,  and  less 
than  God.  Prof.  Swing  says  that  Channing, 
who  held  that  Christ  was  something  less 
than  God,  though  far  above  man,  believed 
in  a  "divine"  Saviour,  and  such  a  Saviour 
the  Unitarians  wanted  to  see,  in  their  system. 
Now,  when  we  have  this  passage  which  dis- 
tinctly affirms  that  the  Saviour  of  Channing 
was  a  divine  Saviour,  and  when  we  know 
that  Channing's  Saviour  was  not  God,  I 
want  to  know  if  the  defense  mean  to  impose 
upon  me,  in  the  sense  of  asking  me  to  believe 
that  whenever  Prof.  Swing  uses  the  words 
"divine  Saviour,"  he  means  God?  The  thing 
is  preposterous  ;  I  still  adhere  to  my  propo- 
sition that  there  is  nothing  in  Prof.  Swing's 
sermons  which  rightly  require  me  to  believe 
that  he  understands  Christ  to  be  God.  I 
don't  charge  him  with  denying  that  Christ 
is  God,  but  if  he  does  believe  it,  I  want  him 
to  say  so,  and  he  has  not  said  so.  Now  Mr. 
Noyes  went  on  and  read  another  paragraph, 
and  whether  he  intended  it,  or  not,  it  looked 
to  me  as  if  he  meant  that  the  word  deity 
which  occurs  in  the  next  paragraph  and  does 
not  refer  to  Christ  at  all,  was  to  be  the 
answer  to  my  question — "Pind  me  a  passage 
where  Christ  is  called  God  ?"  But  it  does 
not  mean  anything  of  the  sort.     I  will  read. 

The.  world  will,  sooner  or  later,  be  com- 
pelled to  go  to  the  divine  presence — not  to 
human  presence — for  its  new  heart. 

Mankind  has  not  holiness  enough  to  entice 
any  heart  from  its  sins — has  not  love  enough 
to  persuade,  nor  power  enough  to  alarm.  It 
is  the  conception  of  an  ever  present  God  ;  it 
is  the  sublime  divinity  of  Jesus;  it  is  com- 
munion with  these  characters  ;  it  is  belief  in 
the  infinite  love,  and  poAver,  and  justice,  and 
in  the  all  pervading  presence  of  Deity,  that 
can  give  to  this  world  noble,  converted 
hearts,  and  can  bear  earth  along  towards  the 
new  birth, — the  new  genius  of  human  life. 

Do  you  wish  me  to  understand  that  the 
word  "Deity"  in  another  paragraph, teaches 
the  Godhead  of  Christ  when  it  has  no  refer- 


PKOF.  PATTOX'S  CLOSING  AKGUMENT. 


177 


ence  to  Christ?  Is  there  any  hiw  of  con- 
struction which  shall  require  mc  to  believe 
the  word  "deity"  as  used  eight  lines  below 
the  word  "Saviour,"  refers  to  Jesus,  when 
he  has  already  said  that  Channing's  Saviour 
is  a  divine  Saviour,  and  when  we  know  that 
Channing's  Saviour  was  not  God — (if  any- 
body wants  to  look  up  Channing — there  arc 
his  books) — when  we  know  that  Channing's 
Saviour  was  not  God — when  he  distinctly 
repudiated  the  idea — is  there  any  law  of  con- 
struction I  say  which  compels  me  to  put  the 
interpretation  on  it  which  the  defense  seem 
to  desire  that  I  shall  put  upon  it  ?  From  the 
emphasis  that  Mr.  Noyes  put  upon  that 
passage,  it  seemed  to  me  that  he  relied  upon 
that  to  prove  that  Prof.  Swing  held  to  the 
deity  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  that  he  claimed 
that  he  had  found  a  passage  which  removed 
the  doubt  raised  by  this  specification.  He 
has  not  found  a  passage  in  which  Prof.  Swing 
called  Christ,  God.  He  has  not  found  a  pas- 
sage in  -jvhich  the  deity  of  Jesus  Christ  has 
been  asserted.  He  cannot  put  his  finger  upon 
a  passage  in  which  Prof.  Swing,  in  all  these 
sermons  has  made  an  unequivocal  assertion 
that  Jesus  Christ  is  God — that  though  robed 
in  mortal  flesh,  he  was  God  Almighty,  the 
Maker  of  Heaven  and  earth.  He  has  given 
me  even  greater  reason  to  adhere  to  my 
assertion  in  the  fifth  specifijation.  I  do  not 
assert  that  Prof.  Swing  denies  the  deity  of 
Christ ;  I  do  not  call  him  an  Arian  ;  but  I 
do  say  it  is  a  very  singular  thing  that  in  the 
course  of  a  ministry  of  some  six  or  seven 
years,  he,  believing  the  doctrine  of  the  deity 
of  Christ,  has  not  uttered  a  sentence  which 
the  accused  could  bring  into  court  to  silence 
that  allegation — not  a  syllable — not  a  word. 

Now  I  call  the  court  to  witness  that  giving 
the  passages  which  are  certainly  equivocal, 
to  say  the  least,  giving  the  most  favorable 
construction  to  Prof.  Swing's  language,  even 
allowing  that  in  certain  passages  which  were 
read  here  yesterday,  there  were  certain  things 
said  which  seemed  to  assume  the  doctrine  of 
pardon  and  atonement,  and  sacrifice  and  re- 
generation, in  the  sense  in  which  we  under- 
stand them — it  still  remains  true  that  he  has 
not  produced  a  solitary  passage  to  prove  this 
cardinal  doctrine  of  our  faith  to  be  held  by 
Prof.  Swing.  It  is  a  very  singular  thing, 
that  preaching  to  his  congregation  as  he  does, 
believing  ostensibly  that  Jesus  Christ  is  God, 
and  man,  in  two  distinct  natures,  and  one 
person  ;  that  he  has  a  human  body  and  a 


human  soul,  and  that  with  this  human  body, 
and  human  soul,  constituting  his  human 
nature,  he  has  also  a  divine  nature — that  is 
to  say,  was  God  ;  this  doctrine,  holding 
such  a  place  in  our  theology  that  it  gives 
character  to  every  item  in  our  creed — it  is  a 
remarkably  singular  thing  that  when  the 
defense  is  called  upon  to  produce  a  passage 
in  which  this  doctrine  is  taken  for  granted, 
or  unequivocal  asserted,  it  cannot  be  pro- 
duced. 

Let  us  pass  to  another  passage.  Not  only 
is  it  true  that  this  fifth  specification  has  not 
been  set  aside,  but  it  is  also  true  that  the 
question  of  Sabellianism  has  not  been  ex- 
plained. Now,  mark  me.  At  this  point  I 
am  not  accusing  Prof.  Swing  of  being  a 
Sabellian ;  what  I  shall  have  to  say  as  to  his 
belief  on  the  subject  of  the  Trinity  is  not  now 
in  issue.  I  say  he  has  been  unfaithful  in  the 
discharge  of  his  public  ministry  in  this  re- 
spect, that  he  has  given  his  approval  to  the 
doctrine  which  is  commonly  called  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Modal  Trinity,  and  that  with  all 
the  ingenuity  of  my  brother  Noyes,  and  with 
every  thing  that  he  has  said  on  the  subject, 
and  the  very  best  construction  that  he  has 
placed  upon  it,  I  submit  to  this  court  the  coun- 
sel has  said  nothing  to  set  aside  the  force  of  the 
allegation  to  the  eflfect  that  he  has  given  his 
public  approval  to  the  doctrine  of  a  Modal 
Trinity.  You  will  remember  Prof.  Swing  has 
taken  particular  pains  on  more  occasions  than 
one  to  ridicule  the  idea  of  the  Trinity — to  make 
use  of  the  very  objection,  which,  of  all  others, 
holds  the  front  rank  in  Unitarian  circles,  to 
the  effect  that  it  cannot  be  conceived — that 
it  involves  a  contradiction.  I  don't  mean  to 
say  that  he  says  it  involves  a  contradiction, 
but  he  says  that  nobody  can  see  how  one  can 
be  three,  and  three  one.  That  is  the  ar- 
gument of  the  Unitarians.  If  there  is  a  soli- 
tary thing  more  frequently  than  another 
upon  a  Unitarian's  lips,  and  which  comes 
more  glibly  from  them,  it  is  that  nobody  can 
see  how  three  can  be  one,  or  one  be  three. 

Now,  if  Prof.  Swing  has  given  his  en- 
dorsement to  that  objection,  he  is  wrong. 
And  not  only  so.  He  has  not  only  circu- 
lated this  false  coin  ;  he  has  not  only  circu- 
lated this  slander  upon  the  Presbyterian 
Church  and  the  Council  of  Nice,  and  all  the 
theological  standards,  but  he  has  gone  fur- 
ther ;  he  has  gone  so  far  as  to  put  the  sign  of 
his  approval  upon  the  doctrine  which  is  in- 
vented as  something  to  save  the  doctrine  of 


178 


THE  TRIAL  OP  KEY.  DAVID  SWING. 


the  Trinity,  and  at  the  same  time  get  rid  of 
■what  they  call  the  contradiction.  "  Truths 
for  To-day,"  page  79  : 

But  while  human  experience  cannot  ap- 
proach the  Trinity,  it  can  approach  the  di- 
vineness  of  Christ;  for  if  Christ  be  not  di- 
vine, every  impulse  of  the  Christian  world 
falls  to  a  lower  octave,  and  light  and  love 
and  hope  alike  decline.  There  is  no  doctrine 
into  which  the  heart  may  so  inweave  itself 
and  find  anchorage  and  peace  as  in  this 
divineness  of  the  Lord.  Hence,  Christianity 
bears  readily  the  idea  of  three  offices,  and 
permits  the  one  God  to  appear  in  Father,  or 
in  Son,  or  in  Spirit;  but  when  the  divine  is 
excluded  from  Christ,  and  He  is  left  a  mortal 
only. 

Did  1  ever  accuse  Prof  Swing  of  believing 
in  the  mere  manhood  of  Jesus  Christ  ?  Did 
anybody  ever  think  that  he  had  dropped  to  the 
level  of  Socinianism  ?  Far  be  the  thought. 
What  we  stand  in  doubt  of  is  whether  he  be- 
lieves that  Jesus  Christ  is  God.  He  must  at 
least  be  an  Arian,  for  he  cannot  use  this  lan- 
guage and  be  anything  less,  but  we  never 
dreamed  of  calling  him  a  Socinian,  and  to  put 
in  this  expression  about  being  "  left  a  mortal 
only, ''  is  simply  to  put  up  a  man  of  straw, 
and  knock  him  down  again.  The  same  idea 
comes  out  again  on  page  81. 

For  example,  if  the  doctrine  of  faith  plays 
a  more  prominent  part  in  the  Bible  than  the 
doctrine  of  infant  baptism,  such  also  will  be 
the  order  of  their  usefulness ;  and  if  the 
three  offices  of  God,  as  Father,  and  Ee- 
deemer,  and  Spirit,  are  made  more  promi- 
nent than  the  idea  that  these  three  persons 
are  one  God,  then  what  mankind  will  need 
most,  and  use  most  will  be  the  three  influences, 
God  as  Father,  God  as  Saviour,  God  as  Holy 
Spirit. 

Now  there  is  no  possible  construction  that 
can  be  put  upon  this  language  other  than 
this ;  that  he  does  approve,  whether  he  be- 
lieves it  or  not — I  don't  say  he  believes- it — 
I  don't  know  whether  he  is  as  orthodox  as  to 
be  a  Sabellian — I  don't  know  anything 
about  it — I  am  not  charging  that  he  is  a  Sa- 
bellian ;  I  simply  affirm  that  he  does  ap- 
prove— that  he  does  give  his  approval  to  Sa- 
bellian doctrine,  for  nobody  could  hear  that 
sermon  and  get  any  other  impression  from 
it,  than  that  it  was  to  be  intended  as  some 
sort  of  a  reconciliation  by  which  there  could 
be  a  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost,  and  yet 
one  God.  When  you  make  that  kind  of  a 
Trinity,  you  simply  destroy  the  Trinity. 
Now,  Mr.  Noyes  quoted  to  me  a  passage 
from  Dr.  Hodge  as  if  that  would  be  an  ex- 
tinguisher on  this,  at  any  rate.     According 


to  Dr.  Hodge,  if  a  man  comes  out  and  says 
he  believes  there  are  three  persons  in  the 
godhead,  and  these  three  are  one  God,  the 
same  in  substance,  equal  in  power  and  glory, 
he  would  not  go  on  and  ask  him  how  it  is 
that  there  can  be  three  persons,  or  what 
these  three  persons  mean.  Very  well,  be- 
cause if  he  did  he  would  not  get  a  very  satis- 
factory answer.  We  don't  know  much  about 
that ;  but  we  do  know  that  there  is  one  God, 
and  we  do  know  that  there  are  three  persons, 
and  we  know  that  these  three  persons  are  the 
same  in  substance,  and  equal  in  power  and 
glory.  Let  Prof.  Swing  say  that,  if  he  be- 
lieves in  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  Then, 
instead  of  saying,  I  believe  in  the  Trinity  in 
the  evangelical  sense — which  may  mean  this, 
that,  or  the  other — let  him  say  "  I  believe 
that  there  are  three  persons  in  the  godhead, 
and  these  three  are  one  God,  the  same  in  sub- 
stance and  equal  in  power  and  glory,"  and 
then  all  this  Presbytery  will  have  to  do  will 
be  to  express  its  disapproval  of  that  Sabellian 
teaching.  The  question  as  to  what  his  creed 
is,  is  what  we  want  to  know,  and  he  has  not 
told  us  what  his  creed  is.  He  has  nothing  to 
say  on  the  point  as  to  whether  he  believes 
Sabellianism  or  not. 

Nor  have  the  defense  been  any  more  suc- 
cessful in  their  attempts  to  show  Professor 
Swing's  harmony  with  the  Confession  of 
Faith  on  the  subject  of  justification.  Here 
is  the  sermon  on  "faith."  We  are  jus- 
tified in  assuming,  in  the  absence  of 
any  unequivocal  proof  to  the  contrary,  that 
he  does  not  believe  in  justification  by  faith, 
in  the  sense  in  which  that  doctrine  is  taught 
in  our  standards,  and  held  by  the  Presbyte- 
rian church.  Professor  Swing  kindly  told 
us,  yesterday  afternoon,  that  he  believed  in 
"salvation by  faith."  Whoever  doubted  it? 
I  have  no  kind  of  doubt  but  that  Professor 
Swing  believes  in  salvation  by  faith  ;  but 
the  question  I  wish  him  to  answer  is,  whether 
he  believes  in  justification  by  faith,  and 
whether  his  belief  in  justification  by  faith  is 
as  held  by  the  Presbyterian  church  ?  That 
is  the  question  ;  the  use  of  the  word  '■'■justifi- 
cation^' implies  nothing;  the  use  of  the  word 
^^  faith"  implies  nothing.  He  may  believe 
in  salvation  by  faith.  So  do  the  Unitarians. 
He  may  believe  in  justification  by  faith;  so 
do  the  Unitarians.  But  does  he  believe  in 
justification  by  faith,  as  justification  of  faith 
is  formulated  in  the  Confession  of  Faith  of 
the   Presbyterian    church?     I   say   he   does 


PKOF.  PATTON'S  CLOSING  ARGUMENT. 


179 


not ;  at  least  I  say  -he  has  taught  the  con- 
trary, (and  that  is  more  particularly  the 
point  which  is  before  us,)  in  his  sermon  on 
Good  Works,  and  the  sermon  on  Faith.  It 
is  impossible  to  reconcile  the  doctrine  then 
taught,  with  the  doctrine  of  justification  by 
faitli  taught  in  the  Shorter  Catechism  of  the 
Presbyterian  church.  If  any  one  will  un- 
dertake to  reconcile  them  he  will  very  soon 
find  out  the  error.  Let  us  read  those  ser- 
mons ;  first  the  sermon  entitled  "  Good 
"Works ;  "  second,  the  sermon  entitled 
"Faith."  Now,  I  am  not  going  into  the  ar- 
gument again  ;  I  am  going  to  read  from  Pro- 
fessor Swing's  sermon,  and  ask  the  Presby- 
tery to  follow  me,  and  form  their  ar- 
guments as  I  go  along.  Does  Professor 
Swing  teach  justification  by  faith,  as  that 
doctrine  is  taught  in  the  Presbyterian 
church?  "What  is  justification?  Justifica- 
tion, according  to  the  Shorter  Catechism,  "  is 
an  act  of  God's  free  grace,  wherein  He  par- 
doneth  all  our  sins,  and  accepteth  us  as 
righteous  in  His  sight;  "  that  is  to  say,  jus- 
tification is  a  judicial  act  of  God,  whereby, 
looking  upon  us,  He  pardons  us,  and  counts 
us  as  if  we  were  righteous — "  accepteth  us  as 
righteous."  Is  that  the  view  which  Profes- 
sor Swing  has  of  justification  ?  Let  us  read 
from  page  111  of  "Truths  for  To-Day." 

Faith,  indeed,  will  save  a  soul,  but  faith 
then  is  not  rigidly  a  belief;  it  is  more,  it  is  a 
friendship,  for  the  word  'belief 'is  often  wholly 
omitted,  and  for  whole  pages  the  love  of 
Christ  reigns  in  its  stead.  In  St.  John,  the 
word  '  love  '  quietly  excludes  the  word  '  faith. ' 
Faith,  therefore,  being  devotion  to  a  leader, 
a  mere  belief  is  nothing.  A  man  is  justified 
by  his  active  alFections,  and  not  by  his  ac- 
quie.scence  in  some  principle.  Thus,  faith  in 
the  biblical  sense,  is  not  a  simple  belief,  but 
a  mystical  union  with  Christ,  such  that  the 
works  of  the  Master  are  the  joy  of  the  disci- 
ple. Works,  that  is,  results — a  new  life — 
are  the  destiny  of  faith,  the  reason  of  its 
wonderful  play  of  light  upon  the  religious 
horizon.  As  man,  by  his  sin,  lost  the  image 
of  God,  so  bj'  faith,  that  is,  by  devotion  to 
Christ,  he  is  by  cross,  and  by  forgiveness, 
and  by  conversion,  rewards  of  his  love,  car- 
ried back  to  his  lost  holiness.  Faith  is  not  a 
simple  compliment  to  the  Deity,  for  it  is  not 
God  who  needs  human  praise  so  much  as  it 
is  man  who  needs  virtue,  and  hence  faith 
must  be  such  a  oneness  with  Christ  as  shall 
cast  the  spirit  more  and  more  each  A&y,  to- 
ward that  uprightness  called  '  works,'  which 
man  has  lost,  but  which  only  God  loves. 
Hence,  James  truly  says,  a  man  is  not  justi- 
fied by  what  he  may  believe,  but  bj'  such 
newness  of  inner  life  as  may  cast  the  soul 
into  harmony  with  righteousness.     Faith  as 


a  belief  and  a  friendship  is  good,  so  far  as  it 
bears  the  soul  to  this  moral  perfection. 
This  perfection  is  the  city  to  which  faith  is 
the  open  way,  and  the  only  highway  and 
gate ;  therefore,  by  the  final  works  and  con- 
dition a  man  is  justified. 

When  we  come  to  the  "justified,"  let  us, 
instead  of  using  the  word  "justified,"  use  its 
equivalent — that  is  to  say,  "is  pardoned  and 
accounted  righteous."  [The  speaker  here 
read  the  same  passage,  putting  these  words 
in  the  place  of  the  word  "justified."]  Now,  I 
wish  to  know  whether  any  honest,  intelligible 
construction  of  this  passage  will  allow  us  to 
believe  that  the  word  "justified,"  in  Prof. 
Swing's  vocabulary,  means  "pardoned  and 
accepted  as  righteous."  It  does  not.  It  can- 
not. If  you  put  instead  of  "justified,"  the 
words  "make  holy,"  "make  just,"  then  you 
can  interpret  this  passage —  [The  speaker  read 
the  passage  again,  making  the  change  indi- 
cated.] If  there  is  anything  clear  to  my 
mind  it  is  that  the  word  "justified"  does  not 
mean  "pardoned  and  accounted  righteous," 
but  it  means  "made  holy,"  in  Prof.  Swing's 
vocabulary.  That  settles  this  part  of  justifi- 
cation. 

Now,  what  is  the  ground  of  justification 
according  to  the  Presbyterian  Church  ?  Let 
us  go  over  the  catechism  again,  and  we  shall 
find  what  it  means. 

"Justification  is  an  act  of  God's  free  grace 
wherein  he  freely  pardoneth  all  our  sins  and 
accepteth  us  as  righteous  in  His  sight  only 
for  the  righteousness  of  Christ  imputed  to 
us." 

Now,  do  you  find  anything  in  Professor 
Swing's  sermons,  "Good  Works"  or  "Faith," 
which  leads  you  to  look  at  the  righteousness 
of  Christ  as  the  ground  of  your  justification? 
I  do  not  find  a  word  about  the  righteousness 
of  Christ.  He  speaks  of  justification,  and 
he  speaks  of  faith,  but  when  he  comes  to 
speak  of  the  relation  of  faith  and  justifica- 
tion, there  is  not  a  solitary  syllable  about 
the  righteousness  of  Christ.  'AnA.  not  only 
so,  but  what  he  does  say  is  inconsistent  with 
the  idea  that  he  maintains  that  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ  is  the  ground  on  which  we  are 
justified,  and  is  what  God  looks  at  when  He 
accepts  us  as  righteous. 
Let  us  read  from  page  248. 

Your  Christianity  is  handed  to  you  by 
your  friends  of  yesterday.  Your  hymns  and 
prayers,  your  music  and  your  church  struc- 
ture, your  taste,  your  language,  were  all 
wrought  out  for  you  by  loving  hearts  that 
are  now   dead.     You   are   the    work   of  the 


180 


THE  TRIAL  OF  KEY,  DAVID  SWING. 


past.  As  each  child  that  now  plays  in  its 
tenth  year,  speaking  a  language,  singing  a 
song,  revealing  a  refinement,  is  only  a  result 
of  a  mother's  care  and  solicitude,  so  the 
Christianity  of  your  heart  or  your  age  is 
only  a  work  wrought  by  hnnds  gone  from 
earth  long  ago.  Each  new  lile  is  borne  out 
of  past  works,  as  a  rose  s  bloom  is  the  color 
of  the  light  that  fell  upon  it  in  the  days  that 
will  never  come  back. 

That  is  very  strange  language  for  a 
man  to  use  who  believes  that  each  soul  who 
lives  a  life  of  faith  has  been  the  subject  of 
the  regenerating  influence  of  the  spirit  of  God. 

Salvation,  therefore,  is  the  result  of  a  ho- 
ly industry.  As  the  coral  rocks,  rising  to 
the  surface  of  the  tropic  sea,  are  the  result 
of  a  myriadic  life,  active  through  long  cen- 
turies, so  salvation  comes  to  its  grandeur  in 
this  age  by  help  of  myriadic  praying  and 
singing  lips  buried  now  beneath  time's  old 
-wave,  and  forgotten  in  its  oblivion. 

By  works  of  others  we  are  thus  saved. 

Now  if  a  man  should  say  after  this  that 
■we  are  saved  by  the  sacrifice  of  Christ,  when 
we  had  just  said  we  are  saved  by  the  works 
of  other  men,  how  much  importance  would 
you  expect  me  to  attach  to  such  a  declara- 
tion ?  Is  there  only  such  a  difference  be- 
tween the  work  of  Christ  and  the  work  of 
others  as  that  Christ's  work  stands  par  ex- 
cellence as  that  by  which  we  are  saved  ?  But 
that  is  not  the  point  I  am  driving  at. 

The  impulse  of  this  grand  Christian  indus- 
try is,  faith  in  Christ  as  the  soul's  Saviour. 
It  has  always  been  the  power  that  has  carried 
the  Pauls  over  the  .^gean,  or  the  pioneer 
Methodist  to  the  wilds  of  America.  It  has 
been  the  earthquake  force  thut  has  heaved  up 
from  a  bitter  sea  a  continent  of  unfading 
flowers  and  perpetual  spring.  Each  heart, 
busy  in  any  pursuit,  moves  by  a  natural  ini. 
pulse.  You  know  what  the  love  of  pleasure 
does,  and  you  know  what  is  accomplished  by 
what  the  Latin  poet  calls  "  accursed  love  of 
gold."  Beneath  all  activity  lies  an  impulse, 
a  motive.  Under  that  vast  movement  called 
salvation — that  movement  which  to-day 
gathers  the  Laplander  to  a  worship,  and 
makes  the  Sandwich  Islands  join  with  the 
angels  in  sacred  song  ;  beneath  the  movement 
■which  to-day  is  the  best  glory  of  all  civiliza- 
tion, under  this  vast  renewal  of  the  heart- 
lies  faith  in  Christ,  the  impulse  of  all  this 
profound  action.  The  least  trace  of  infidel- 
ity lessens  the  activity;  unbelief  brings  all 
to  a  halt,  and  damns  the  soul,  not  by  arbi- 
trary decree,  but  by  actually  arresting  the 
best  flow  of  its  life.  Unbelief  is  not  an  ar- 
bitrary, but  a  natural  damnation.  Faith  in 
the  Infinite  Father,  faith  in  Christ  the  Sa- 
viour, faith  in  the  life  to  come,  lifts  the  world 
up  as  though  the  direct  arms  of  God  were 
around  it,  drawing  it  towards  His  bosom. 

And  on  page  251  he  says  : 


I  said  that  in  salvation  two  things  are 
desirable,  a  new  industry  and  a  new  being. 
We  have  alluded  to  the  new  industry  that 
comes  by  faith.  The  idea  of  a  new  being 
needs  only  a  moment's  thought.  You  know 
of  the  fabled  changes  of  the  chameleon,  that 
it  assumes  the  color  of  tlie  leaf  or  rock  on 
which  it  sleeps  ;  but  it  is  no  fable  that  the 
heart  assumes  the  color  of  the  soul  nearest  to 
it,  not  in  space,  but  in  love.  The  Mahom- 
medan  child  assumes  the  character  of  that 
mother  who  leads  it  to  look  to  the  sacred  city 
and  to  saj'  Allah.  It  is  thus  the  world 
through.  The  young  men  of  Athens  who  in 
love  gathered  about  the  feet  of  Socrates, 
were  changed  into  his  likeness,  and  he  was 
condemned  to  death  that  the  public -trans- 
formatitm  might  be  arrested.  Thus  we  are 
all  modeled  by  some  character  standing 
above  us  in  reality  or  by  the  judgment  of 
our  atFection.  By  itself  alone  each  heart  is 
a  blank. 

The  soul  attached  to  Jesus  Christ  by  this 
faith,  which  is  both  an  intellect  and  a  pas- 
sion, is  gradually  transformed  into  his  like- 
ness, and  step  by  step  draws  near  to  that  sal- 
vation found  in  perfect  virtue. 

Now  I  say  this  statement  is  not  peculiar  to 
this  sermon.  That  statement  simply  express- 
es a  sentiment  which  runs  through  every  ser- 
mon Prof.  Swing  preaches.  The  cardinal 
idea — the  generic  idea  of  salvation  in  his 
mind,  is  goodness.     He  continues: 

In  the  face  of  St.  John  and  St.  Paul,  and 
upon  the  foreheads  of  the  Marys,  one  may 
easily  see  the  likeness  of  Jesus,  not  in  full 
splendor,  but  as  in  the  early  summer  morn- 
ing one  may  see  the  coming  day  in  gentle 
outline,  a  radiance  in  the  East. 

Now  the  idea  of  justification  with  you, 
Mr.  Moderator,  and  you,  my  brethren,  is, 
that  we  are  accounted  righteous  because  ol 
the  righteousnes.i  of  Christ.  The  idea  of  jus- 
tification, according  to  Prof.  Swing,  is  that 
we  become  personally  holy  by  virtue  of  our 
confidence  ii.i — our  love  for  Christ.  That  is  the 
idea.  Now  then,  according  to  the  Presbyte- 
rian Chi,rch  and  reformed  theology,  faith  is 
something  altogether  different  from  what  it 
is  in  Prof.  Swing's  theology.  The  catechism 
says  that  we  are  justified  in  the  sense  that 
we  are  freely  pardoned  and  accepted  only  for 
the  righteousness  of  Christ  imputed  to  us, 
and  received  by  faith  alone.  That  is  to  say, 
the  office  of  faith  is  simply  to  receive  the 
righteousness  of  Christ.  The  exercise  of 
trust  in  Christ  is  the  condition  which,  being 
fulfilled,  God  puts  to  our  account  the  right- 
eousness of  Christ.  Is  that  the  office  of  faith 
in  Prof.  Swing's  theology?  Is  that  the  rea- 
son why  faith  has  such  a  wonderful  place  in 
his  theology  ?    Not  at  all.     The  office  of  faith 


PROF.  PATTON'S  CLOSING  ARGUMENT. 


181 


in  his  theology  is  to  lead  us  to  good    works. 
He  says,  page  111: 

■\^orks — that  is  results — new  life  are  the 
destiny  of  faith,  the  reason  of  its  wonderful 
plav  of  light  upon  the  religious  horizon.  As 
man  by  his  sin  lost  the  image  of  God,  so  by 
faith,  that  is  by  devotion  to  Christ,  he 
is  by  cross,  and  by  forgiveness,  and  by 
conversion,  rewards  of  his  love,  carried 
back  to  his  lost  holiness.  Faith  is  not 
a  simple  compliment  to  the  Deity,  for  it 
is  not  God  who  needs  human  praise,  so  much 
as  it  is  man  who  needs  virtue,  and  hence 
faith  must  be  such  a  oneness  with  Christ  as 
shall  cast  the  spirit  more  and  more  each  day 
towards  the  uprightness  called  "work," 
which  man  has  lost,  but  which  God  only 
loves.  Hence,  James,  truly  says,  a  man  is 
not  justified  by  what  he  may  believe,  but  by 
such  a  newness  of  inner  life,  as  may  cast 
the  soul  into  harmony  with  righteousness. 
Faith,  as  a  belief  and  a  friendship,  is  good, 
so  far  as  it  bears  the  soul  to  this  moral  per- 
fection. 

This  perfection  is  the  city  to  which  faith  is 
an  open  way,  and  the  only  highway  and 
gate  ;  therefore,  by  the  final  works  or  condi- 
tion a  man  is  justified. 

Now  let  us  read  this  paragraph  and  ask 
ourselves  when  he  uses  the  word  faith  in  it, 
whether  it  is  the  kind  of  justification  by  faith 
which  we  preach.     Page  251. 

Thus  faith  is  perpetually  elaborating  a 
new  being,  is  separating  the  heart  from  its 
yesterday  of  sin,  and  bearing  it  towards  its 
morrow  of  holiness,  a  law  helped  into  action 
by  a  miracle,  but  yet  a  law.  No  other  grace 
could  so  save  the  soul. 

"What  does  he  mean  by  saving  the  soul? 
You  must  go  back  to  his  other  sermons,  and 
you  will  find  out  that  by  saving  the  soul,  he 
means  making  the  soul  holy,  and  when  he 
says  that  there  is  no  other  grace  that  could 
so  save  the  soul,  he  means  that  some  other 
grace  could  do  something  towards  it,  but  not 
so  much.  The  reason  why  faith  has  its  pro- 
minence in  his  theology  is  that  it  does  more 
than  any  thing  to  save  the  soul  —  that  is,  to 
make  the  soul  holy. 

Charity  may  do  much.  It  softens  the 
heart  and  drags  along  a  train  of  virtue.  But 
it  is  limited  by  the  horizon  of  this  life.  Vol- 
taire and  Paine  were  both  beautiful  in  charity 
toward  the  poor,  but  this  virtue  seems  inade- 
quate. 

Charity  towards  the  poor  which  Voltaire 
and  Paine  had,  may  do  a  great  deal,  but  it 
seems  inadequate.  "Well,  that  is  an  admis- 
sion. He  is  willing  to  go  so  far,  with  re- 
spect to  Voltaire  and  Paine  as  to  say  that 
while  they  have  charity  towards  the  poor, 
and  while  that  charity  will  do  a  great  deal, 
yet  it  seems  inadequate ;  and  he  says  further. 


And  of  the  highest  form  of  charity  a  religious 
faith  is  the  best  cause,  and  hence  charity  must 
take  the  place,  not  of  a  leader;  but  of  one  that 
is  led.  Penitence  is  a  poor  saving  grace 
compared  with  faith;  for  penitence  is  not  a 
perpetual  impulse,  but  only  a  regret. 

Now  what  is  the  doctrine  of  that  sermon? 
It  does  not  mean  anything  else  my  brethren 
than  this — that  the  efficacy  of  faith  consists 
in  the  fact  that  it  leads  a  man  to  be  holy 
personally,  and  leading  him  to  be  holy  as  no 
other  grace  will,  it  therefore  of  all  others  is 
entitled  jortr  excellence  to  be  called  the  saving 
grace ;  and  so  we  are  said  to  be  saved  by 
faith  ;  we  are  saved  by  foith  because  faith 
makes  us  holy.  We  are  justified  by  faith 
for  justification  means  being  holy;  and  since 
faith  makes  holy  in  the  sense  in  which  no 
other  grace  can,  we  say  we  are  justified  by 
faith.  Is  that  what  you  believe,  Brother 
Barrett?  [Brother  Barrett  assents.]  "Well, 
you  are  not  sound.  That  is  not  what  the 
Presbyterian  Church  believes.  Brethren, 
whether  I  make  the  question  at  issue  very 
distinct  or  not,  you  may  depend  upon  it  that 
the  whole  system  of  the  Confession  of  Faith 
underlies  it,  or  rather,  is  above  it,  and  if  you 
take  Prof.  Swing's  view  on  the  subject  of 
justification  by  faith  then  you  ruin  the 
whole  fabric  of  the  doctrines  of  Christ,  for 
they  are  all  involved.  You  may  believe  it 
or  not,  as  you  please ;  you  may  say  I  am  in 
error,  if  you  like  ;  you  may  vote  against  me 
when  you  come  to  vote  on  this  question  ;  you 
may  decide  that  Prof.  Swing  holds  correct 
views ;  but  whether  you  do  it  or  not,  I  tell 
you  the  sermon  on  "Faith"  and  the  sermon 
on  "  Good  "Works  "  are  no  more  in  harmony 
with  the  doctrine  of  the  Confession  of  Faith 
than  is  the  Council  of  Trent — than  is  the 
theology  of  Dr.  Horace  Bushnell.  The  the- 
ology of  Dr.  Horace  Bushnell  is,  that  Jesus 
Christ  came  into  this  world  to  show  his  sym- 
pathy for  us;  that  he  died  a  sacrillce  in  the 
sense  that  at  the  price  of  his  own  life  he  en- 
tered into  sympathy  with  us  in  order  that  he 
might  win  us  to  a  holy  love;  that  justifica- 
tion consists  in  our  living  a  holy  life  and 
that  Justification  by  Faith  means  that  we 
live  a  holy  life  because  we  have  faith  in 
Christ  and  believe  in  Him,  and  believe  in 
the  impulses  which  Christianity  engenders. 
That  is  his  system,  and  that  is  Prof.  Swing's 
system,  and  that  is  in  the  very  teeth  and 
eyes  of  the  Presbj'terian  Church,  whether 
you  believe  it  or  not. 

Mr.  Moderator,   I  am  not  satisfied,  even 


182 


THE  TRIAL  OF  EEV.  DAVID  SWING. 


after  Prof.  Swing's  own  declarations  upon 
the  subject  and  after  Mr.  Noyes'  able  defense 
in  his  behalf,  with  his  position  on  the  subject 
of  the  Inspiration  of  the  Scriptures ;  and 
this  Presbytery  will  bear  me  out  when  I  say 
that  what  we  believe  on  the  subject  of  in- 
spiration is  not  that  God  in  some  way  in- 
spired Moses  and  David  and  the  rest;  but 
what  we  believe  is  that  the  Bible  is  the 
infallible  Word  of  God,  the  only  rule 
of  faith  and  practice,  and  that  it  is  infalli- 
ble because  God  spoke  through  those  who 
wrote  the  books,  and  that  what  they  say, 
God  said;  so  that  with  equal  propriety  we 
can  say  the  109th  Psalm,  God  wrote  it,  or  Da- 
vid wrote  it,  as  we  look  at  it  from  the  human 
side  or  the  Divine;  just  as  with  equal  pro- 
priety we  can  read  the  epistle  to  the  Romans 
we  can  say,  God  wrote  that,  and  every  word 
is  His  word  ;  and  we  can  say  that  Paul  wrote 
that  and  that  every  word  is  Paul's  word. 
Now  if  you  take  any  other  view  than  this, 
then  when  you  come  to  speak  of  Paul  in  his 
epistle  to  the  Romans  and  to  allow  that  he 
ever  spoke  his  opinions  in  that  epistle  without 
being  under  inspiration,  you  cannot  answer 
your  objector  who  will  turn  around  and  say, 
"  That  is  Paul's  opinion."  The  only  way 
you  can  get  rid  of  such  an  argument  is  to 
stand  up  and  take  the  grand  old  ground  that 
the  Bible  is  the  Word  of  God.  If  you  shake 
the  confidence  of  the  people  in  the  Word  of 
God,  then,  God  help  them.  If  you  tell  the 
people  that  they  can  take  a  chapter  out  of 
the  Bible  and  say  that  is  not  inspired,  that 
they  can  set  up  their  own  standard  and  let 
their  own  reason  be  the  judge  as  to  what  they 
shall  regard  as  true,  then  you  have  thrown 
the  Bible  to  the  winds,  and  you  have  estab- 
lished rationalism  as  the  basis  of  faith.  I 
tell  you  that  there  is  no  doubt  about  how  we 
should  deal  with  a  question  so  serious  as  this. 
We  may  difi"er  with  each  other  in  respect  to 
some  doctrines ;  we  may  differ  with  our  Bap- 
tist brethren  as  to  the  subjects  and  the  modes 
of  baptism  ;  we  may  differ  with  our  Armin- 
ian  brethren  as  to  the  decrees ;  we  may  dif- 
fer among  ourselves  as  to  the  way  in  which 
we  shall  hold  the  doctrine  of  depravity— we 
may  differ  in  all  these  respects ;  but  all 
Christians  who  hold  the  Christian  faith  as  a 
supernatural  faith  should  agree  with  respect 
to  the  authority  of  God's  '^^^  'id.  But  I  affirm 
that  Prof.  Swing  has  made  statements  both  in 
his  sermons  and  in  the  newspapers — and  those 
statements  remain  uncontradicted — the  ten- 


dency of  which  is  to  shake  the  faith  of  the 
people  in  the  authority,  and  the  infallibility, 
and  the  inspiration  of  the  Bible.  Now,  how 
did  he  help  us  ?  Did  he  come  to  us  yester- 
day and  tell  us  that  he  did  believe  that  the 
109th  Psalm  is  written  by  the  Holy  Ghost? 
Does  he  tell  us,  and  has  he  ever  afiirmed  that 
the  Scriptures  are  all  given  by  the  inspira- 
tion of  God  in  the  sense  that  we  hold  them 
to  have  been  inspired? 

Mr.  Noyes. — He  does. 

Mr.  Patton. — He  says  that  he  believes  in 
the  inspiration  of  the  scriptures.  Very  well. 
What  did  he  say  yesterday?  He  said  that 
God  could  make  a  bad  law,  and  that  he  did 
make  a  bad  psalm.  Do  you  believe  that?  A 
fig  for  your  inspiration  when  we  have  lost 
confidence  in  the  God  of  inspiration  I  When 
you  have  imputed  to  God  the  idea  that  Ho 
made  a  bad  law  and  a  bad  psalm,  then  it 
don't  make  much  diflerence  to  me  whether 
you  afterwards  assert  your  belief  in  the  in- 
spiration of  the  scriptures  or  not.  Now,  sir. 
Prof.  Swing  has  not  settled  that  question. 
He  has  not  answered  my  difficulties  in  respect 
to  the  laws  or  to  the  wars,  or  to  the  psalm, 
and  he  did  not  say  a  word  about  the  Apoca- 
lypse— not  a  word.  Now,  Mr.  Moderator, 
what  we  want  to  know  is,  whether  Prof. 
Swing  believes  in  the  plenary  inspiration  of 
the  scriptures.  Has  he  taken  back  that  state- 
ment tliat  the  Jews  were  wrong  in  waging  a 
war  which  they  were  commanded  to  wage  by 
the  Almighty  ?  Have  we  from  him  such  an 
explicit  avowal  of  his  views  on  the  subject  of 
inspiration  as  shall  satisfy  his  brethren  ?  He 
has  made  no  such  avowal;  and  until  he  makes 
it,  I  shall  hold  that  he  has  uticred  statements, 
and  that  he  does  entertain  views  in  respect 
to  the  Bible  that  are  not  in  keeping  with  his 
ordination  vows.  Now  I  have  traversed  the 
first  charge,  and  I  do  hope  that  the  Presby- 
tery will  keep  distinctly  before  their  minds 
the  difference  between  the  first  charge  and 
the  second.  We  find  in  the  first  charge  that 
Prof.  Swing  has  done  certain  acts ;  that  he 
preached  a  certain  sermon,  delivered  a  certain 
lecture,  wrote  a  certain  article ;  has  from 
time  to  time  spoken  in  derogation  of  the  doc- 
trines of  the  Presbyterian  Church ;  that  he 
has  aflSrmed  certain  principles  which  are 
dangerous  in  their  character ;  made  use  of 
certain  statements  which  were  unhappy  and 
calculated  to  produce  false  impressions  ;  fur- 
ther, that  he  has  taught  the  doctrine  of  Se- 
bellianism,  or   given   his   approval  thereto; 


PEOF.  PATTON'S  CLOSING  AKGUMENT. 


183 


further  still,  that  he  has  taught  wrong  doc- 
trine on  the  subject  of  "Good  Works,"  on 
the  subject  of  "Justification  by  Faith,"  and 
on  the  subject  of  "  Inspiration  of  the  Scrip- 
tures;" and  that  he  has  still  further  used 
language  in  respect  to  the  inspiration  of  the 
scriptures  calculated  to  shake  the  faith  of  the 
people  in  their  integrity.  These  specifications 
are  now  before  you,  and  it  will  be  for  you  to 
say  whether,  in  the  light  of  these  specifica- 
tions, you  are  able  conscientiously  to  afiirm 
that  Prof.  Swing  has  been  faithful  and  dili- 
gent in  maintaining  the  truths  of  the  gospel 
as  he  promised  when  he  took  his  ordination 
vows.  I  do  not  believe,  brethren,  notwith- 
standing the  desire  which  we  might  have  to 
acquit  him — notwithstanding  the  affection  in 
which  he  may  be  held  by  j'ou — notwithstand- 
ing the  personal  friendship  which  you  have 
for  him — I  do  not  see  how  it  is  possible  for 
this  Presbytery,  knowing  these  facts,  and 
having  this  evidence  before  them,  and 
having  the  vows  of  Presbyters  upon  them 
— I  do  not  see  how  you  can  allow  Prof. 
Swing  to  go  on  unimpeded  in  a  course  which, 
to  say  the  least,  is  dangerous. 

But  that  is  not  the  only  charge.  If  Prof. 
Swing  should  come  into  this  court,  and  should 
stand  in  the  presence  of  this  body,  and  should 
say,  deliberately  and  without  equivocation, 
*'I  do  believe  in  the  doctrines  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church  as  they  are  taught  in  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith,"  which  is  the  acknowledged 
Ej'mbol  of  that  church,  then  the  second 
charge  would  be  dismissed;  but  it  would 
still  remain  true  that  he  had  taught  false 
doctrine,  and  it  would  still  be  for  this  Pres- 
bytery to  express  its  decided  disapproval  of 
that  teaching ;  it  would  still  be  for  the  Pres- 
bytery to  require  of  him  a  retraction  of  those 
6tatements,anda  disavowal  of  the  errors  con- 
tained in  them,  and  an  avowal  of  the  doc- 
trines alleged  to  have  been  impugned  by 
them  ;  and  it  would  still  be  for  this  Presby- 
tery to  express  its  sentiments  on  the  subject 
of  his  past  unfaithfulness.  "Whatever  may 
be  his  belief,  this  certainly  has  been  his 
teaching  ;  and  so  far  as  his  teaching  is  con- 
cerned, this  Presbytery  cannot  allow  it  to  go 
without  its  notice. 

But  now,  what  is  his  belief?  He  has  dis- 
tinctly told  you  in  his  plea  that  the  Presby- 
terian Church  actual  is  one  thing,  and  the 
Presbyterian  Church  historic  is  another;  he 
has  distinctly  told  you  that  his  church  is  the 
church  actual  and  not  the  church   historic. 


Now,  if  he  comes  and  wants  to  be  regarded 
as  a  Presbyterian  in  good  and  regular  stand- 
ing on  the  ground  that  he  belongs  to  the 
church  actual,  and  if  as  a  matter  of  fact  he 
afiirms  that  the  church  actual  is  one  thing 
and  the  church  historic  is  another,  and  if  you 
know  what  the  church  historic  is,  and  do 
not  know  what  the  church  actual  is  ;  then  I 
wish  to  know  how  much  is  involved  in  the 
statement  that  he  adheres  to  the  church 
actual.  It  may  mean  any  thing.  We  do  not 
know  anything  about  a  formulated  New 
School  Theology  or  a  formulated  Old  School 
Theology.  We  have  no  Old  School  Theo- 
logy, and  we  have  no  New  School  Theology. 
There  is  one  theology  in  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  and  that  is  the  theology  of  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith.  The  distinction  between, 
an  actual  church  and  an  historic  church,  is  a 
distinction  which  this  Presbytery,  or  at  all 
events,  the  Presbyterian  Church,  will  never 
recognize  in  the  world.  Not  only  is  there 
no  such  actual  church  as  distinguished  from 
the  historic  church,  but  if  there  were,  Prof. 
Swing  has  no  right  to  call  himself  a  New 
School  Presbyterian,  because  the  New  School 
Presbyterian  Church  never  did  believe  the 
doctrines  which  he  holds,  and  never  omitted 
to  believe  the  doctrines  which  he  has  repu- 
diated. The  New  York  Evangelist  has  a 
right  to  be  regarded  as  some  authority  when 
the  question  of  New  School  Presbyterianism 
comes  up ;  and  it  distinctly  says  that  there 
are  very  few  New  School  Presbyterians  who 
will  regard  his  picture  of  Presbyterianism  as 
a  portrait  of  themselves  ;  and  I  fancy  the 
New  York  Evangelist  is  right.  But  that 
question  is  not  before  us.  We  know  nothing 
in  our  judicial  capacity  except  the  Confes- 
sion of  Faith — that  is  the  statute  book 
of  the.  Presbyterian  Church — when  we  are 
trying  a  person  for  heresy  ;  and  Prof.  Swing 
has  distinctly  assumed  that  he  has  left  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  so  far  as  some  of  the 
doctrines  taught  in  that  Confession  are  con- 
cerned ;  he  has  hinted  in  a  manner  by  no 
means  obscure  as  to  what  the  doctrines  are 
he  has  left  behind  ;  and  those  doctrines  are  ! 
Predestination  for  one,  perseverance  for 
another,  and  total  depravity  for  another.  He 
has  distinctly  said  in  his  pulpit  that  the  Pres- 
byterian Church  holds  as  her  creed  just  the 
common  evangelical  doctrines.  I  deny  this. 
It  is  not  true.  There  is  a  ground  for  the 
Presbyterian  Church  as  distinguished  from 
the    Methodist    Church.        The     Methodist 


184 


THE  TKIAL  OF  EEV.  DAVID  SWING. 


Church  has  a  right  to  an  existence  on  the 
ground  of  the  principles  of  theology  which 
differentiate  it  from  other  denominations  ; 
and  I  honor  it  for  maintaining  in  their  in- 
tegrity those  doctrines.  The  Baptist  Church 
has  a  right  to  an  existence  separate  from  the 
Presbyterian  Church  on  account  of  the  doc- 
trines which  differentiate  it  from  other  de- 
nominations ;  and  I  honor  that  Church  for 
its  steadfast  adherence  to  the  doctrines  which 
distinguish  it.  The  Episcopal  Church  has  a 
right  to  a  distinct  existence  on  the  ground  of 
the  theological  principles  which  differentiate 
it  from  other  churches  ;  and  I  honor  it  for 
its  steadfast  adherence  to  its  views. 
And,  by  parity  of  reasoning,  the  Presbyter- 
ian Church  has  a  right  to  an  historical  posi- 
tion in  this  world,  and  to  perpetuate  its  faith  ; 
and  whether  the  faith  is  right  or  wrong  is 
not  in  question.  I  believe  with  all  my  heart 
it  is  right,  but  right  or  wrong  it  is  a  right  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church  to  have  this  faith 
recognized  ;  and  having  this  right  it  has  a 
right  to  require  of  its  ministers  that  they 
shall  maintain  this  faith.  Prof.  Swing  has 
departed  from  the  doctrines  which  differenti- 
ate the  Presbyterian  Church  from  other 
churches  ;  and  having  departed  from  them 
it  is  the  logical  conclusion  that  he  would  find 
a  better  home  where  his  theology  would  be 
more  in  harmony  with  the  views  of  his  co- 
workers. That  is  a  frank,  honorable  position, 
and  there  c.in  be  no  other.  But  that  is  not 
all.  Not  only  has  Prof.  Swing  departed  from 
the  doctrines  which  distinguished  the  Pres- 
byterian Church  and  which  constitute  the  rea- 
son of  its  separate  existence  in  the  world,  but 
he  has  departed  from  other  doctrines  which 
underlie  the  whole  scheme  of  evangelical 
Christianity  ;  and  these  doctrines  are  the 
Trinity  and  the  doctrine  of  Justification  by 
Paith,  and  the  doctrine  of  the  inspiration  of 
the  Scriptures.  We  make  this  affirmation 
on  the  ground  of  his  teaching.  We  suppose 
that  what  he  teaches  he  believes.  Now,  if  in 
his  public  preaching  he  sees  fit  to  sneer  at 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  we  are  right  in 
believing  that  he  does  not  hold  that  view  of 
the  Trinity  which  is  formulated  in  our  stan- 
dards. If  he  believes  in  the  Trinity  as 
stated  in  the  formularies  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  I  am  so  far  willing  to  give  him 
credit  for  sincerity,  as  to  believe  he  would 
not  ridicule  the  doctrines  of  the  Trinity.  The 
fact  that  he  has  done  so  is  presumption  that 
he  does  not  believe  it ;  for  if  he  did   believe 


it  he  would  speak  of  it  with  respect.  Not 
only  so,  but  in  his  public  utterances  he  has 
given  his  approval  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
Modal  Trinity  in  a  sermon  which  I  have 
already  read. 

Now  if  he  believes  in  the  Trinity,  as  the 
doctrine  is  stated  in  the  Confession  of  Faith, 
as  it  is  taught  to  our  children  in  the  Sunday 
School,  in  the  Shorter  Catechism,  I  think  he 
would  not  put  on  record  his  approval  of  a 
doctrine  which  denies  the  separate  personal- 
ity of  the  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost,  and 
which  affirms  that  the  Trinity  is  only  a 
three-fold  manifestation  of  the  one  God.  Not 
only  so,  but  what  Professor  Swing  has  taught 
in  his  sermons,  and  avowed  on  the  subject  of 
Justification,  is  not  in  harmony  with  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith.  I  shall  not  go  over  that 
ground  again.  Now,  if  it  is  true  that  he 
has  taught  error  on  the  subject  of  justifica- 
tion, as  he  certainly  has,  it  is  fair  to  presume 
that  he  believes  what  he  teaches.  I  give  him 
credit  for  honesty  in  believing  what  he  says. 
Therefore,  if  his  sermons  represent  the  man, 
they  represent  him  as  not  in  harmony  with 
the  Presbyterian  church,  or  with  the  Evan- 
gelical churches  on  the  subject  of  justification. 
I  do  affirm,  and  shall  retain  my  adherence  to 
the  opinion,  until  he  retracts  these  statements, 
that  he  does  not  believe  the  doctrine  of  Jus- 
tification by  Faith,  because  that  doctrine  is 
contradicted  flatly  in  the  sermon  on  Good 
Wo7-ks  and  the  sermon  on  Faith.  I  assume 
that  he  does  not  hold  the  doctrine  of  the  In- 
spiration of  the  Scriptures,  as  the  doctrine  is 
formulated  in  the  standards  of  the  Presbyte- 
rian church  and  ratified  by  this  Presbytery 
within  the  last  three  weeks.  I  say,  if  Prof. 
Swing  believes  this  doctrine  of  the  Inspira- 
tion of  the  Scriptures,  he  could  not  say  what 
he  has  said  in  regard  to  the  One  Hundred 
and  Ninth  Psalm ;  and  he  could  not  say 
what  he  said  in  regard  to  the  laws  and  wars 
of  the  Jews ;  and  he  could  not  say  what  he 
has  said  in  regard  to  the  Apocalypse.  There- 
fore, upon  the  ground  that  he  teaches  what 
he  believes — these  statements  being  uncon- 
tradicted, and  being  in  direct  opposition  to 
the  Confession  of  Faith — I  do  assume  that 
he  does  not  believe  in  the  plenary  inspiration 
of  the  Scriptures,  as  that  doctrine  is  taught 
in  the  Confession  of-  Faith  ;  that  he  does  not 
believe  ia  the  doctrine  of  Justification  by 
Faith,  as  it  is  taught  in  the  Confession  of 
Faith ;  that  he  does  not  believe  in  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity  as  it  is  formulated  in  our 


PKOF.  PATTON'S  CLOSING  AKGUMENT. 


185 


standards  ;  that  he  does  not  believe  in  one  or 
more  of  the  five  points  of  Calvinism.  I  say- 
that  David  Swing  does  not  believe  the  doct 
rines  of  the  Confession  of  Faith.  He  has  denied 
the  doctrine  of  the  Justification  by  Faith ; 
he  has  denied  the  Inspiration  of  the  Scrip- 
tures ;  he  has  denied  one  or  more  of  the  Five 
Points  of  Calvinism  ;  he  has  denied  the  doct- 
rines which  differentiate  the  Presbyterian 
church  from  other  churches,  and  which  con- 
stitute the  ground  and  reason  of  its  existence; 
he  has  aflSrmed  on  the  floor  of  this  Presbj'- 
tery  that  he  gives  his  adherence  to  the  Pres- 
byterian church  actual,  as  distinguished  from 
the  Presbyterian  church  historical  ;  he  has 
taught  in  his  pulpit  that  the  doctrines  to 
which  he  gives  his  adherence  are  the  evan- 
gelical doctrines,  and  not  the  doctrines  which 
formerly  distinguished  the  Presbyterian 
church  from  other  churches ;  and  I  say  he 
does  not  believe  in  the  doctrines  of  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith ;  and  if,  in  the  face  of  this 
declaration  on  his  part,  and  his  public  teach- 
ings, this  Presbytery  are  willing  to  affirm 
that  he  does  believe  them,  then  they  may  do 
so  and  take  the  responsibility.  I  say  he  does 
not  believe  them. 

Prof.  Swing  came  into  this  court  and  told 
us  something  about  his  views,  concerning 
which  we  stood  in  doubt.  He  told  us  some- 
thing on  the  subject  of  his  statements  in 
regard  to  the  109th  psalm.  Did  he  tell  us  he 
believed  in  the  Trinity,  in  Justification  by 
Faith  or  in  the  Inspiration  of  the  Scriptures 
as  these  doctrines  are  formulated  in  our 
standards  ?  He  said  something  about  believ- 
ing certain  doctrines  as  they  are  understood 
in  their  Evangelical  sense.  What  we  want 
to  know  is  whether  he  believes  those  doc- 
trines as  they  are  taught  in  the  standards  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church.  And  until  he 
stands  on  the  floor  of  this  Presbytery  and 
satisfies  the  consciences  of  his  brethren  who 
stand  in  doubt  of  him,  by  telling  them  dis- 
tinctly that  it  is  the  Presbyterian  Church  to 
which  he  gives  his  loyalty  as  a  church  and 
affirms  his  belief  in  the  doctrine  of  tliat 
church,  let  him  not  come  and  make  a  creed 
and  ask  the  Presbyterian  Church  to  believe 
with  him  ;  let  him  come  and  tell  us  that  he 
believes  these  doctrines  as  the  Presbyterian 
Church  believes  them  and  not  as  formulated 
by  any  Evangelical  Alliance  or  any  ir- 
responsible party. 

Now  one  word  about  this  question  of 
liberty.     Mr.  Moderator,  I  will  say  nothing 


in  vindication  of  my  knowledge  of  the  dis- 
tinctions between  the  Old  School  and  the 
New  School  Churches.  I  mean  simply  to 
say  that  I  was  brought  up  and  educated  as 
an  Old  School  man,  and  I  will  say  here  that 
if  there  is  any  odium  attached  to  that  name 
and  any  obloquy  which  can  rest  upon  my 
head  for  holding  the  theology  peculiar  to 
that  branch  of  the  church,  I  am  willing  to 
go  through  life  bearing  it.  But,  I  have  been 
the  pastor  sir,  of  a  New  School  Church  too. 
And  my  predecessor  in  that  church  was  a 
pronounced  New  School  man,  and  he  trained 
his  people  in  a  doctrinal  system  which  made 
them  first  rate  theologians.  The  best  people 
I  ever  knew  were  people  who  for  28  years  sat 
under  the  teachings  of  a  man  who  holds  a  first 
rank  in  this  country,  not  only  as  a  theologian 
but  as  a  logician.  A  man  who  knows  more 
about  Butler's  Analogy  than  Samuel  T.  Spear 
of  Brooklyn,  is  not  very  often  found.  To  the 
people  over  whom  he  had  been  so  long  pastor, 
I  preached  and  I  know  that  the  theology 
which  they  held  and  the  theology  which  I 
held  were  the  same  theology  ;  and  it  is  from 
the  letters  of  that  very  people  to-day  that  I 
am  receiving  some  of  the  grandest  encour- 
agement I  have  had  in  carrying  on  this 
battle  for  God's  truth. 

Mr.  Moderator,  I  suppose  if  you  and  I 
were  to  compare  notes  on  theology,  there 
might  be  some  points  in  respect  to  which  we 
might  dift'er  ;  and  when  Mr.  Noyes  quoted 
Dr.  Musgrave  to  the  eff"ect  that  differences 
of  opinion  always  would  exist,  he  simply 
quoted  something  which  every  man  in  his 
senses  would  allow.  Why  sir,  the  question 
with  me  is  not  whether  a  man  believes  in 
the  doctrine  of  federal  headship,  or  realism, 
or  depravity,  through  natural  relationship  ; 
for  all  these  diflerences  are  existing  in  our 
church  and  they  are  taught  in  our  Semin- 
aries. Again,  the  question  with  me  is  not 
whether  a  man  believes  in  natural  ability  or 
moral  ability ;  for  we  all  admit  that  a 
man  may  hold  either  view  without  con- 
travening the  Confession  of  Faith.  The 
question  is  not  whether  a  man  believes  in 
what  is  called  a  particular  atonement  or  a 
general  atonement ;  for  we  know  there  are 
diff"erences  of  opinion  in  the  Presbyterian 
Church  on  that  subject  which  do  not  affect 
the  integrity  of  the  Calvinistic  system,  and 
we  all  agree  that  the  atonement  is  sujficienter 
pro  omnibus,  efficnciter  pro  electis.  The  ques- 
tion with  me  is  not  whether  a  man  believes 


186 


THE  TRIAL  OF  REV.  DAVID  SWING. 


in  the  doctrines  which  distinguish  the  Old 
School  Church  from  the  New  Old  School 
Church  ;  and  when  any  man  undertakes  upon 
the  floor  of  this  Presbytery  to  say  that  this 
issue  is  an  issue  which  ever  existed  in  the 
Presbyterian  Church  between  the  Old  and 
New  School  branches,  then  he  undertakes  to 
fly  in  the  face  of  history.  The  question  is 
whether  the  diflTerences  of  Prof.  Swing  are 
difierences  which  interfere  with  the  integrity 
of  the  Calvinistic  system.  I  admit  freely  that 
the  Presbyterian  Church  is  not  committed 
to  the  ipsissima  verba  theory  of  the  Confes- 
sion of  Faith.  That  is  not  the  point  in  issue; 
but  the  question  is  whether  Prof.  Swing 
holds  a  theology  which  is  consistent  with  the 
integrity  of  the  Calvinistic  system.  "Well, 
now  sir,  when  a  man  denies  the  church  doc- 
trine of  the  trinity,  the  doctrine  of  justifi- 
cation by  faith,  plenary  inspiration  of  the 
Scriptures,  predestination,  total  depravity, 
perseverance,  and  expresses  such  views  as  he 
has  on  the  subject  of  Providence  and  the 
ministry,  and  it  is  affirmed,  nevertheless,  that 
he  does  not  hold  anything  inconsistent  with 
the  integrity  of  the  Calvinistic  system — then 
I  give  up.  Why  sir,  if  Prof.  Swing  can 
be  considered  as  holding  the  Calvinistic  sys- 
tem when  he  distinctly  tells  you  that  he  has 
left  behind  him  the  leading  doctrines  of  that 
system,  if  he  can  be  consistently  regarded  as 
holding  to  the  Confession  of  Faith  and  the 
integrity  of  the  Calvinistic  system,  at  the 
same  time  that  he  attempts  a  departure  from 
the  doctrine  of  Justification  by  Faith  which 
is  the  back-bone  of  the  system,  we  might 
raise  the  question  whether  a  man  might  be 
an  atheist  and  be  in  good  and  regular  stand- 
ing in  a  Christian  church.  So  that  this  ques- 
tion of  liberty  must  be  understood.  We  do 
admit — we  wish  to  admit — and  we  wish  with 
all  our  heart  to  admit  that  free  play  of  indi- 
viduality in  the  construction  of  Presbyter- 
ian symbols,  which  does  not  interfere  with 
the  integrity  of  the  reformed  system  ;  and  if 
anybodj'^  imputes  to  me  the  idea  that  I  am 
standing  for  a  construction  of  the  Presbyter- 
ian creed,  which  will  not  tolerate  anybody 
who  does  not  believe  in  the  federal  headship 
of  Adam,  then  he  does  me  an  injustice.  The 
liberty  however  which  is  consistent  with 
holding  to  the  integrity  of  the  Calvinistic 
system,  is  one  thing,  and  the  liberty  which 
flings  the  doors  of  the  church  open  to  every- 
body, and  allows  everybody  to  enter  and  do 


as  he  pleases  with  impunity,  is  another 
thing ;  and  the  Presbyterian  Church  will 
not  live  as  an  organization — it  cannot  live 
as  an  organization — if  the  ministers  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  do  not  love  their  doc- 
trines enough  to  stand  up  for  them  and  to 
require  their  brethren  to  adhere  to  them  or 
leave  her  communion. 

Now  brethren,  I  am  aware  that  this  is  not 
simply  the  question  whether  Prof.  Swing, 
individually,  holds  the  Confession  of  Faith 
and  we  individually  care  to  have  him  stay 
in  the  Presbyterian  Church.  The  magni- 
tude of  this  case  arises  out  of  the  fact  that  it 
is  a  typical  case,  and  the  importance  of  the 
issue  arises  out  of  the  fact  that  in  settling  it 
you  do  give  your  own  judgment,  whether 
the  Presbyterian  Church  has  a  creed,  or 
whether  broad  churchism  without  limit  is  to 
be  the  policy  of  the  future.  That  is  the  issue. 
And  in  determining  it  we  may  very  well 
leave  Prof.  Swing  and  Prof.  Patton  out  of 
the  question ;  j'ou  may,  very  well,  when  you 
go  to  make  up  your  verdict,  forget  the  prose- 
cutor, and  forget  the  accused,  and  in  view  of 
the  evidence  before  you  simply  determine 
that  in  the  decision  you  give,  you  will  settle 
the  question  so  far  as  you  are  concerned,  as 
to  your  wishes  respecting  the  future  policy  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church.  Let  me  say  that 
you  have  the  eyes  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  upon  you  to-day.  Never  in  her  his- 
tory has  there  been  a  time  when  men  looked 
more  anxiously  upon  a  proceeding  than  they 
do  upon  this.  Presbyterians  throughout  the 
land,  see  in  this  a  typical  case,  and  ask  the 
question  whether,  when  the  trial  comes, 
the  Presbyterian  Church  will  be  true  to  her 
standards ;  whether  she  will  maintain  the  flag 
of  Presbyterianism  at  the  mast-head,  or 
bring  it  to  the  deck — that  is  the  question. 
The  Presbyterian  Church  throughout  this 
land  is  looking  upon  this  Presbytery,  and  the 
Presbyterian  Church  expects  every  man  to 
do  his  duty.  Whatever  pain  it  may  cost 
you,  and  however  great  may  be  the  struggle, 
if  you  do  find  that  Prof.  Swing  does  not 
believe  the  doctrines  of  the  Confession  of 
Faith,  it  will  be  your  duty  to  say  that  he 
cannot  be  a  minister  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church. 

After  prayer  the  Presbytery  adjourned  to 
meet  oa  Monday,  the  18th  inst.,  at  10  o'clock 
A.  M. 


KEY.  DR.  R.  W-  PATTERSON'S  OPINION. 


187 


fK 


Monday,  May  18th,  1874,  \ 
10  o'clock  A.M.      J 

The  Presbytery  convened  and  was  opened 
with  prayer,  by  the  Moderator. 

Liter  alia  : 

It  was  resolved,  that  the  roll  be  called  in 
order  to  make  up  a  correct  list  of  those  en- 
titled to  vote  on  the  case,  and  that  all  mem- 
bers whose  names  are  at  present  on  the  Roll 
shall  be  entitled  to  vote,  unless  their  right 
shall  be  challenged,  as  their  names  are  read. 
During  the  calling  of  the  Roll,  Elder  Spring 
asked  to  be  excused  from  voting  because  of 
his  absense  during  the  taking  of  testimony, 
which  was  granted. 

Elders  Hart,  Leonard,  and  Frost,  being 
found  absent,  it  was  moved  that  no  action  be 
taken  in  their  cases  until  they  appear  in  the 
house. 

The  following  resolution  was  adopted. 

Resolved,  that  the  Roll  be  now  called,  and 
the  members  proceed  to  express  their 
opinions  on  the  case.  It  being  understood 
that  each  member  shall  be  allowed  ten 
minutes  in  which  to  state  his  opinion,  with 
the  privilege  of  speaking  as  much  longer  as 
others  not  speaking  may  give  him  their  time. 

The  stated  clerk  than  began  the  calling  of 
the  Roll,  and  opinions  were  given  in  the  fol- 
lowing order. 

.("r..      OPINION  OF  REV.  DB.  R.  W.  PATTERSON. 

Mr.  Moderator : 

I  perhaps  owe  an  apology  to  the  judicatory 
for  attempting  to  canvas  this  question  some- 
what at  length.  I  have  been  requested  to  do 
so  by  a  considerable  number  of  brethren, 
who  wished  to  have  their  views  substantially 
in  regard  to  the  matter  so  presented,  that 
there  would  hereafter  be  no  misapprehension 
with  respect  to  the  ground,  in  the  main, 
upon  which  they  and  L  probably  would  vote, 
particularly  the  constitutional  questions  in- 
volved. 

I  have  endeavored  to  consider  candidly  all 
the  aspects  of  this  case  that  have  come  before 
my  mind;  and  I  trust  I  have  not  suffered 
any  previous  commitment  to  swerve  my 
judgment  in  any  essential  respect. 

The  following  seem  to  me  the  material 
points  that  claim  special  attention : 

First,  I  have  a  few  words  to  say  in  regard 
to  the  general  subject  of  discipline  in  cases 
like  the  present.  I  am  not  one  of  those  who 
denounce  all  disciplinary  action  on  the  part  of 
our  judicatories  on  account  of  alleged  error  in 
doctrine  or  defective  public  teachings.  Every 


church,  at  least  every  Evangelical   Church, 

has  its  distinctive  principles,  which  it  must 
defend  against  manifest  and  willful  infringe- 
ment. The  same  is  true  of  every  permanent 
organization  in  the  world. 

But  there  are  certain  great  ideas  that 
ought  to  govern  us,  especially  in  relation  to 
the  exercise  of  discipline  for  alleged  depart- 
ures from  the  faith  of  the  church,  or  short- 
comings in  the  discharge  of  ministerial 
duty. 

I.  In  all  doubtful  cases  it  behooves  us  to 
lean  towards  the  side  of  liberty.  It  is  my 
judgment  that  all  orthodox  churches  possess- 
ing a  wide  ecclesiastical  power,  where  there 
has  been  no  connection  with  the  state,  have 
sutlered  more  from  too  many  than  too  few 
attempts  at  discipline  for  alleged  unsound- 
ness in  the  faith.  Certainly  this  has  been 
true  in  the  history  of  our  own  church. 
Why  the  division  in  1741  but  for  the  exer- 
cise of  doubtful  prerogatives  ?  Why  the 
Cumberland  Presbyterian  schism  but  for  an 
unwise  use  of  authority  when  forbearance 
would  have  saved  a  large  and  useful  element 
to  the  church,  which  we  are  now  endeavor- 
ing to  recover  ?  Why  but  for  a  like  cause, 
the  great  division  of  1838,  which  was  healed 
four  years  ago  without  any  material  conces- 
sions on  either  side,  except  to  ignore  previ- 
ous action  ?  In  doubtful  cases  it  is  safest  to 
pronounce  in  favor  of  liberty. 

II.  To  secure  the  ends  of  discipline  we 
must  carry  with  us  the  consciences  not  only 
of  our  own  church  but  of  other  churches, 
and  of  fair-minded  people  of  the  world. 
Any  action  that  seems  to  savor  of  needless 
severity,  even  if  lawful,  is  not  expedient, 
unless  vital  interests  are  clearly  at  stake. 
We  ought  to  have  grounds  for  discipline,  in 
a  case  like  the  present,  that  cannot  be  candid- 
ly questioned  before  we  exercise  it,  otherwise 
reaction  and  disaster  will  inevitably  follow. 
What  if  some  errors  have  been  committed? 
They  should  be  such  as  are  not  incident  to 
ordinary  human  frailty,  where  we  can  be- 
lieve that  the  heart  has  been  right,  that  it 
may  not  be  said  to  us,  let  him  that  is  with- 
out as  great  or  like  sin  among  you  cast  the 
first  stone.  There  may  be  errors  and  faults 
which  cannot  be  easily  reached  by  discipline 
because  they  are  only  mistakes  of  judgment^ 
and  involve  no  intentional  wrong.  It  is  too 
late  in  the  day  to  hope  for  the  correction  of 
such  evils  by  a  lordly  exercise  of  ecclesiast- 
ical power.      If  there  has   been  hypocrisy 


188 


THE  TKIAL  OF  KEV.  DAVID  SWING. 


or  gross  misclemeanor,  let  it  be  clearly,  une- 
quivocally shown,  and  then  let  the  sword  be 
used,  and  not  until  then.  We  stand  on  crit- 
ical ground.  Better  take  no  action  for  con- 
viction than  to  take  doubtful  action,  the 
consequences  of  which  may  reach  through  a 
whole  generation.  And  if  any  person  then, 
is  determined  to  continue  the  strife,  let  the 
responsibility  be  upon  his  own  head.  Truth 
is  often  better  vindicated  by  its  own  power 
than  by  the  sheer  authority  of  a  bare  ma- 
jority. 

II.    What,   now,    are     the    questions    at 
issue  ? 

1.  Not  whether  Prof.  Swing  is  altogether 
right  in  his  views  of  Presbyterianism,  actual 
and  historical.  He  may  be  partly  wrong  on 
this  point,  and  yet  hold  and  teach  in  accord- 
ance with  our  system.  Our  form  of  govern- 
ment provides  for  the  amendment  of  the 
Confession  as  well  as  of  other  parts  of  the 
system  ;  which  implies  that  there  may  be  a 
majority  of  the  whole  church  who  feel  that 
the  time  has  come  for  revision  ;  while  they 
believe  that  the  Confession  as  it  is,  contains 
the  system  of  doctrine  taught  in  the  Holy 
Scriptures.  Prof.  Swing  may  be  right  or 
wrong  as  to  the  extent  to  which  such  con- 
victions have  gained  ground  in  the  church, 
and  as  to  the  changes  that  have  occurred  on 
the  subject  of  theological  preaching,  and  yet 
be  guilty  of  no  ecclesiastical  offense.  Prof. 
Swing  has  said  that  some  of  those  formulas 
have  been  passed  by  as  incorrect  which  look 
towards  a  dark  fatalism,  or  towards  infant 
damnation,  etc.  It  would  be  more  accurate, 
perhaps,  to  say  that  these  statements  are  not 
regarded  by  a  large  portion  of  the  church 
as  happily  expressing  the  truths  for  which 
they  treat.  For  example,  it  is  said  in  our 
Confession  that  elect  infants  dying  in  infan- 
cy are  saved  by  the  blood  of  Christ — a  form 
of  expression  which  I  venture  to  say  would 
now  be  avoided  by  three-fourths  of  our  min- 
isters as  looking  towards  or  seeming  to  im- 
ply, a  dark  fatalism,  by  suggesting  the  ques- 
tion. What,  then,  of  non-elect  infants  ? 
Calvin's  Institutes  were  published  by  the 
Presbyterian  Board  of  Publication  (O.  S.), 
in  1841,  with  only  the  general  disclaimer  on 
the  subject  of  reprobation,  that  they  "may 
be  regarded  as  too  unqualified."  And  this 
work  is  still  circulated  by  the  funds  of  our 
church.  In  these  Institutes  (book  3,  chap. 
23,  sec.  7,),  occurs  the  following  passage: 
"I  inquire  again  how  it  came  to  pass  that 


the  fall  of  Adam,  independent  of  any  reme- 
dy, should  involve   so  many    nations,  with 
their  infant  children,  in   eternal   death,  but 
because  such  was  the  will  of  God?"     Then 
it   added  :     "It   is  an   awful  decree,  I  con- 
fess," etc.     Again   he   says  (vol.  2,  book  4, 
chap.   16,  sec.   7)  :     "If   any  of  those  who 
are  subjects  of  divine  election,  after  having 
received  the  sign  of  regeneration,  depart  out 
of  this  life  before  they  attain  years  of  dis- 
cretion,  the   Lord   renovates   them   by  the 
power  of  His  Spirit."     So  in  other  passages. 
Such  language   used   in   one   of   our  books 
tends  to   fix  an  interpretation  upon  our  con- 
fession which  it  seems   worth  while  to  dis- 
claim as  not  indorsed,  now  at  least,  by  our 
church.     And  I  may  here  say  that  it  seems 
to  me,  on  the  reading  of  Calvin,  that  his  idea 
is  that,  while  the  children  of  believers  dying 
in  infancy  are  saved,  though  they  may  not 
have  been  baptised,  he  doubts  the  salvation 
of  those  whose  parents  are  not  in  the  cove- 
nant.    Whether  sonie  of   the  Westminster 
divines  may  have  held  that  there  are  non- 
elect  infants,  I  do  not  know.    Again  Calvin, 
says   (book  3,  chap.  23,  sec.  1)  :     "It  is  not 
at  all  consistent  to  transfer  the  preparation 
(of  sinners)    for    destruction    to   any  other 
than  the  secret  counsel  of  God ;  and  which 
is  also   asserted  just  before  in   the  context, 
that  God  raised  up  Pharaoh,  and  whom  He 
will  He  hardeneth.     And  hence  it   follows, 
that  the  cause   of  hardening   is   the   secret 
counsel  of  God."     And   so   in  many   other 
passages.     The  language  of  our  Confession 
may  possibly   be   explained   in   consistency 
with  a  less  dark  view  than  this.     But  who 
of  us  would  now   select  precisely  the  lan- 
guage of  chap.   3,  sees.   3  and  4,  as  in  the 
best  way  expressing  our  view  of  predestina- 
tion?    AVe  diflTer  among   ourselves  on   the 
subject  of  reprobation,  and  some  pass  it  by 
as  not  essential   to   the   system  of  doctrine 
taught  in  the  Holy  Scriptures.     Still,  Prof. 
Swing  holds,  as  we  all  do,  to  the  doctrine  of 
Divine  Sovereignty  in  every  sense  not  in- 
consistent with  the  freedom  and  responsibil- 
ity  of  man.     As  to  his  views  of  doctrinal 
preaching,   he   may  be   wrong,  and  yet  be 
guilty  of  no  ecclesiastical  oliense,  so  long  as 
he    recognizes     the    fundamental    ideas    of 
Scripture,  as  to  the  way  of  salvation.    His 
preaching  may  be    defective,    seriously  so, 
as    that  of   others    who  insist  too  little  on 
love  and  free  grace,  and  too  much  on  the 
sovereignty  of    God,    and    yet    there    may 


KEY.  DR.  E.  W.  PATTERSON'S  OPINION. 


189 


be  no  ecclesiastical  offense,  unless  we  are  all 
to  be  arraigned  before  a  critical  tribunal  for 
the  imperfections  of  our  work. 

2.  Nor  is  thequestion,  whether  Prof.  Swing 
always  uses  the  best  language,  or  expresses 
himself  with  such  clearness  that  he  cannot  be 
easily  misunderstood.  The  inspired  writers 
are  liable  to  be  misunderstood  on  many 
points.  James  certainly  teaches  that  "a  man 
is  justified  by  works,  and  not  by  faith,  only  ;" 
and  he  nowhere  explains  his  meaning  so  as 
to  reconcile  his  teachings  with  those  of  Paul. 
And  our  Saviour  himself  says  :  "  My  father 
is  greater  than  I,"  which  has  been  widely 
misunderstood.  Were  not  James  and  his 
master  then  evangelical  preachers  ?  No 
^'doubts"  as  to  Prof.  Swing's  meaning,  indust- 
riously circulated  by  any  of  his  brethren,  are 
sufficient  proof  that  he  means  to  obscure  the 
truth.  Why,  I  have  myself  been  claimed  by 
Unitarians,  while  using  the  sharpest  discrimi- 
nations in  my  power  to  prevent  it. 

3.  Nor  is  the  question  whether  Prof.  Swing 
preaches  in  language  which  no  ingenuity 
can  possibly  reconcile  with  Unitarianism  or 
6ome  other  scheme  of  error.  Some  men 
preach  in  the  light  of  sharply-drawn  theolog- 
ical distinctions,  and  are  constantly  fencing 
against  error;  while  others  as  faithful,  to  say 
the  least,  preach  in  less  discriminating  terms, 
but  in  popular  language  f^  the  people,  and 
like  James  and  Jesus  himself,  seldom  use 
language  on  any  doctrinal  point  that  could 
not  be  easily  misunderstood,  and  still  like 
Jesus  and  James,  they  teach  no  false  doctrines, 
and  seem  to  teach  none  except  when  their 
words  are  perversely  twisted  by  wily  critics 
who  choose  to  compare  their  expressions  with 
those  of  some  almost  evangelical  preacher, 
who  does  teach  positive  errors  along  with  his 
approximations  to  the  true  Gospel.  It  is  not 
five  days  since  a  letter  was  received  in  this 
city  from  an  honored  minister  of  our  church 
residing  in  a  distant  city,  in  which  he  ex- 
presses his  admiration  of  the  manner  in 
which  Prof.  Swing  puts  the  truth  in  his 
volume  "Truths  for  To-day,"  which  the 
prosecutor  has  found  to  be  so  full  of  heresy. 

4.  Nor  is  it  the  question  whether  Prof. 
Swing  has  not  sometimes  used  faulty  language. 
There  is  seldom  a  bold  and  poetical  preacher 
who  does  not  often  use  expressions  that  are 
open  to  criticism,!  and  that  seem  to  border 
on  doubtful  views.  Prof.  Swing,  it  must  be 
repeated,  does  not  profess  to  be  a  theologian, 
and  in  the  circuit  of  his   wide  illustrations 


and  rapid  grouping  of  generally  related  facts 
and  ideas,  it  would  not  be  strange  if  he  should 
sometimes  put  things  in  such  relations  as  to 
aff"ord  opportunity  for  an  ingenious  critic  to 
detect  appearances  of  implied  error  when 
none  was  intended  or  thought  of  by  the 
speaker.  Perhaps  we  cannot  explain  or  defend 
all  of  Prof.  Swing's  expressions,  but  this  is 
not  the  point. 

5.  The  real  questions  are  these  : 
Is  there  clear  proof  that  Prof.  Swing  does 
not  sincerely  receive  and  adopt  the  Con- 
fession of  Paith  as  containing  the  system  of 
doctrine  taught  in  the  holy  scriptures  ?  And 
has  he  been  unfaithful  in  such  a  sense  as  to 
constitute  an  ecclesiastical  offense,  in  the 
discharge  of  his  ministerial  duties,  in  the 
respects  named  by  the  prosecutor?  I  put 
the  point  of  the  second  charge  first  and  the 
first  last,  where  they  properly  belong. 

III.  Now  how  are  we  to  answer  these 
questions  ? 

1.  We  must  inquire  what  a  sincere  accept- 
ance of  the  Confession  involves.  There  is  a 
wide  difference  between  a  cordial  "  reception 
of  the  Confession  as  containing  the  system 
of  doctrine  taught  in  the  Holy  Scriptures," 
and  receiving  every  word  and  letter  of  the 
Confession,  as  the  best  possible  expression  of 
divine  truth,  or  as  even  being  correct  at  all 
points.  A  man  may  not  accept  the  entire 
Confession,  ipsissimis  verbis,  and  yet  be  a 
good  Presbyterian.  This,  even  Dr.  Hodge 
freely  admits,  in  The  Princeton  Review.  But 
a  minister  of  our  church  must  hold,  it  is  said, 
the  essentials  of  the  Calvinistic  system,  as 
embraced  in  the  Confession.  Very  well. 
But  what  are  these  essentials  ?  The  reunion 
of  our  church  was  effected  on  the  doctrinal 
bsxsis  that,  "The  Confession  of  Faith  should 
continue  to  be  received  and  adopted  as  con- 
taining the  system  of  doctrine  taught  in  the 
Holy  Scriptures."  But  the  question  returns, 
how  shall  we  determine  how  much  was 
meant  by  this  language,  as  used  by  the  two 
bodies  when  they  came  together?  The 
church  had  been  divided  mainly  on  account 
of  different  constructions  of  the  terms  of 
subscription  to  the  Confession,  and  had  stood 
as  two  bodies  from  1838  to  1869.  In  1837 
the  doctrinal  views  of  the  New  School  party 
were  expressed  in  a  protest  in  the  General 
Assembly  embracing  sixteen  propositions, 
which  were  by  no  means  co-extensive  with 
the  letter  of  the  Confession,  and  which  the  Old 
School  majority  of  the  body  regarded  as  af- 


190 


THE  TRIAL  OF  EEV.  DAVID  SWING. 


fording  such  evidences  of  unsoundness  on 
the  part  of  the  protestors,  that  they  adopted 
a  resolution,  that  certified  copies  of  the  pro- 
test be  sent  to  the  Presbyteries  to  which  the 
signers  belonged,  "  calling  their  attention  to 
the  development  of  views  contained  in  it, 
and  enjoining  them  to  inquire  into  the  sound- 
ness of  the  faith  of  those  who  had  ventured 
to  make  so  strange  avowals  as  some  of  those 
were."  But  the  world  does  move,  and  there 
is  progress  in  some  very  conservative  bodies. 
In  August,  1837,  a  large  convention  of  New 
School  ministers  and  elders  met  in  Auburn, 
N.  Y.,  and  the  same  statements  of  true  doc- 
trine that  had  been  drawn  up  by  the  pro- 
testors in  the  Assembly,  in  May  previous, 
were  adopted  by  them  as  an  expression  of 
their  faith.  Now  mark  the  point.  In  the  Old 
School  Assembly  at  Albany,  in  1868,  a  pro- 
test agai  nst  the  action  of  the  Assembly  in  favor 
of  reunion  on  a  given  basis,  was  presented  by 
the  minority,  one  of  whom  is  now  a  member  of 
this  body.  And  in  an  answer  to  that  protest, 
which  was  adopted  by  a  large  majority  of  the 
Assembly,  it  v/as  asserted,  by  way  of  de- 
fending the  New  School  body  against  the 
charge  of  holding  or  cherishing  errors  in 
their  connection,  that  the  "  Auburn  declara- 
tion ;  "  the  same  statements  made  by  our  pro- 
testors in  the  Assembly  of  1837,  and  then 
pronounced  unsound,  "embraces  all  the  essen- 
tials of  the  Calvinistic  creed."  And  the  late 
Dr.  Eichards,  who  is  called  "  that  excellent 
and  sound  divine,"  is  said,  by  that  Old 
School  Assembly,  to  have  been  the  leader  of 
the  Auburn  Convention — the  same  man  who 
wrote  the  tract  on  General  Atonement, 
which  is  now  among  the  publications  of  the 
General  Assembly's  Board.  "We  have  thus 
a  tolerably  good  definition  of  what  the 
New  School  theology  is,  which  .was  en- 
dorsed by  the  Old  School  Assembly  in  Al- 
bany, in  1868,  as  sufiiciently  Calvinistic.  In 
the  reunion,  Albert  Barnes,  and  N.  S,  S.  Be- 
nian,  and  S.  T.  Spear,  and  Dr.  Hickok,  were 
accepted  as  good  Presbyterians  ;  whose  doc- 
trinal views  had  been  long  before  the  public, 
and  not  one  of  whom  received  the  entire 
Confession  of  Faith,  to  the  letter,  in  its  ob- 
vious sense,  as  expressing  the  whole  truth 
and  nothing  but  the  truth.  Now,  I  venture  to 
say,  that  the  prosecutor  regards  all  these  men 
as  far  astray  from  our  Confession,  although 
he  says  he  would  not  disfellowship  them. 
But  it  is  to  be  shown  that  Prof.  Swing  does 
not  receive  and  adopt  the  Confession  of  Faith 


as  containing  the  system  of  doctrine  as  it 
was  held  by  the  signers  of  the  Auburn  Dec- 
laration, and  the  great  body  of  New  School 
men  at  the  time  of  the  Reunion  ;  otherwise 
the  charges  are  not  proved.  For  such  lati- 
tude of  construction  was  clearly  understood 
to  be  allowable,  when  the  Reunion  was  efi"ect- 
ed.  Accordingly  Dr.  Adams  publicly  de- 
clared to  the  Old  School  Assembly,  before  the 
terms  of  reunion  were  agreed  upon,  that  we 
New  School  men  should  stand  as  the  advo- 
cates and  representatives  of  liberty.  And 
his  speech  was  warmly  commended. 

More  than  all  this ;  in  the  introduction  of 
the  Plan  of  Union  adopted  by  the  two  As- 
semblies at  New  York,  it  is  declared  that  we 
"each  recognize  the  other  as  a  sound  and 
orthodox  body." 

I  suggested  this  clause  myself,  as  a  member 
of  the  re-union  committee.  It  was  at  first 
objected  to  as  unnecessary  by  one  member  of 
the  committee,  but  was  afterwards  adopted 
unanimously  by  both  Assemblies.  In  this 
manner  the  soundness  in  doctrine  and  discip- 
line, of  the  New  School  Church,  was  in  terms 
acknowledged ;  which  covered  the  whole 
ground  of  liberty  that  had  been  aimed  at  in 
the  clauses  that  were  embraced  in  the  terms 
of  the  plans  acted  upon  in  previous  years. 
For  our  object  was  to  secure  an  adoption  of 
the  liberal  mode  of  subscription  to  the  Con- 
fession that  had  been  always  allowed  in  the 
Ne\y  School  Church.  But  it  will  be  asked, 
why  the  terms  proposed  in  1860,  with  what 
was  called  the  Gurley  clause,  were  rejected 
by  the  Presbyteries,  and  the  terms  of  1869 
were  accepted,  if  both  mean  the  same  thing 
as  to  liberty  ?  I  answer  because  the  plan  of 
1869  was  encumbered  by  other  oflTensive  con- 
ditions against  which  many  of  us  voted  in 
the  Presbyteries  ;  and  because  it  was  deem- 
ed equivocal,  and  therefore  suited  neither 
party.  I  opposed  the  plan  of  1868,  but  en- 
dorsed,the  plan  of  1869,  when  once  I  was 
assured  by  many  leading  men  in  the  Old 
School  Body  that  we  would  be  allowed  the 
same  liberty  under  the  terms  of  union,  which 
we  had  always  enjoyed  in  our  free  New 
School  Church.  It  was  thus  on  the  basis  of 
continuing  to  receive  and  adopt  the  Confes- 
sion of  Faith  as  containing  the  system  of 
doctrine  taught  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  as 
both  bodies  had  before  received  and  adopted 
it,  that  the  re-union  was  effected.  It  was 
understood  on  both  sides  that  the  Auburn 
Declarations  were  sufficiently  orthodox  as  an 


REV.  DR.  R.  W.  PATTERSON'S  OPINION. 


191 


expression  of  faith,  although  they  presented 
a  modified  type  of  Calvinism. 

If  we  were  deceived  in  this,  we  must  have 
been  willfully  betrayed  by  our  brethren,  and 
guilefully  caught  in  a  trap — which  I  do  not 
believe.  A  man  may,  therefore,  be  a  good 
Presbyterian  in  the  re-united  church,  who 
does  not  accept  tlie  doctrines  of  reprobation 
and  election,  and  limited  atonement  and  in- 
ability and  imputation,  according  to  the 
sterner  interpretations  of  them  that  were  given 
by  Calvin  and  a  large  portion  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church.  But  Prof.  Swing  declares 
that  he  is  a  Prebyterian  in  the  New  School 
sense.  The  question  is  now,  have  the  prose- 
cution proved  that  this  declaration  is  untrue  ? 
If  not,  the  second  charge  falls  on  purely 
Presbyterian  grounds.  It  is  merely  an  in- 
ference that  his  views  are  in  every  sense 
uncalvinistic,  because  he  does  not  ac- 
cept the  formulated  theology  under  those 
aspects  of  it  that  are  held  by  him  to 
look  towards  a  dark  fatalism.  The  Confes- 
sion he  accepts  as  containing  the  system  of 
doctrine  taught  in  the  scriptures,  but 
not  as  being  a  perfect  expression  of  that 
system,  or  as  bearing  no  shade  of  exaggera- 
tion on  the  side  of  divine  sovereignty,  and 
against  the  liberty  and  responsibility  of  man. 
If  such  a  reception  of  the  Confession  is  not 
allowable,  if  we  must  all  hold  and  teach  the 
words  of  the  Confession  at  all  points,  let 
me  be  assured  of  it,  and  I  will  instantly  as- 
sert my  freedom  and  manhood  by  going  out 
of  the  church  into  broader  and  greener 
pastures.  But  I  do  not  believe  that  our 
church  requires  any  such  thing. 

2.  Then,  as  to  preaching  and  teaching  in  the 
church :  is  it  to  be  understood  that  -a  man 
must  declare  unequivocally  the  Old  School 
theology,  or  even  the  New  School  theology, 
or  any  formulated  theology,  or  be  open  to 
ecclesiastical  impeachment  as  unfaithful  in 
the  sense  of  committing  an  actionable  offense  ? 
May  not  a  man  preach  the  gospel  for  years, 
and  yet  never  once  guard  against  carping 
cavilers,  using  terms  in  their  accepted  evan- 
gelical sense  when  occasion  requires,  and 
using  them  in  other  senses  when  the  connec- 
tion suggests  another  use,  with  the  same 
freedom  that  our  Saviour  asserted  when  he 
sometimes  spoke  of  "  the  regeneration"  in  a 
wide  sense,  and  again  of  the  personal  new 
birth  with  a  more  restricted  meaning?  And 
is  a  man  to  be  disciplined  for  unfaithfulness 
if  he  sometimes   unwittingly   uses   vague  or 


ambiguous  language  in  his  preaching,  or  if 
he  is  misunderstood  by  some  of  his  hearers, 
while  the  great  majority  are  not  only  delight- 
ed by  his  public  presentations,  but  are,  a? 
they  deem,  highly  benefited  in  point  of  spir- 
itual experience  ?  Is  it  a  law  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church  that  everj'  preacher  shall  pre- 
clude all  possibility  of  misinterpretation,  and 
teach  evangelical  truth  with  all  the  precision 
of  a  theological  professor?  And  are  the 
people  and  elders  of  our  congregations  to  be 
told  that  they  are  unable  to  distinguish  evan- 
gelical preaching  by  its  language  and  spirit, 
because  they  cannot  bear  a  theological  exam- 
ination? Such  assumption  would  be  fitting 
for  the  Church  of  Rome,  but  cannot  be  ac- 
cepted in  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  the 
nineteenth  century.  It  is  enough  for  eccle- 
siastical purposes  that  a  Presbyterian  minis- 
ter uses  the  current  theology  of  the  pulpit  of 
his  own  church  on  doctrinal  points,  and 
teaches  nothing  contrary  to  the  truths  which 
this  phraseology  is  commonly  understood  to 
convey. 

3.  Now  let  me  say,  in  the  next  place, 
that  we  are,  in  my  judgment,  bound  to  in- 
terpret the  language  used  by  the  accused  with 
a  generous  spirit,  according  to  his  position, 
and  with  due  regard  to  his  mental  and  rhe- 
torical habits.  He  is  a  Presbyterian  minister, 
and  has  professed  to  receive  and  adopt  sin- 
cerely the  confession  of  faith  as  containing 
the  system  of  doctrine  taught  in  the  holy 
scriptures.  He  now  claims  to  be  a  New 
School  Presbyterian,  and  alleges  his  belief 
in  the  fundamental  doctrines  which  he  has 
been  accused  of  rejecting,  using  the  descrip- 
tive terms  in  the  evangelical  sense — in  the 
sense  of  the  Evangelical  Alliance.  Are  we 
not,  in  all  fairness,  bound  to  accept  his  declar- 
tions  as'  honestly  made,  in  the  absence  of 
clearer  proof  to  the  contrary?  The  prosecu- 
tor has  ingeniously  endeavored  to  throw  the 
burden  of  disproof  on  the  accused.  And 
even  if  we  should  admit,  which  we  do  not, 
that  some  slight  presumption  was  raised 
against  Prof.  Swing's  soundness  in  the  faith, 
by  the  "doubts"  which  the  prosecutor  has 
done  more  than  all  others  to  circulate, 
this  presumption  would  be  effectually 
overcome  by  the  testimony  of  his  elders 
—  his  regular  hearers,  who  are  cer- 
tainly men  of  average  intelligence,  equal 
to  the  elders  in  this  body  who  are  now  sitting 
as  judges  and  jurors,  and  who  tell  us  that 
Prof.  Swing  preaches  and  teaches  evangelical 


192 


THE  TRIAL  OF  EEV.  DAVID  SWING. 


truth  in  the  same  terms  essentially  as  they 
have  been  accustomed  to  hear  it  taught  by 
other  ministers  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  ; 
and  that  they  never  heard  a  word  of  unevan- 
gelical  teaching  from  his  lips,  either  in  pub- 
lic or  in  private. 

Are  we,  th^n,  to  assume  that  Prof.  Swing 
has  been  playing  the  role  of  an  adroit  knave 
— using  words  to  deceive,  and  carefully 
hiding  his  real  meaning  under  ambiguous 
terms?  Prof.  Patton,  in  his  closing  address 
last  Thursday,  to  make  a  point,  insisted  that 
we  ought  to  give  Prof.  Swing  the  credit  of 
honestly  saying  what  he  meant.  But  in  the 
whole  of  this  prosecution  he  has  assumed  the 
contrary  of  all  this;  he  has  assumed  that 
Prof.  Swing  has  artfully  covered  up  his  real 
opinions,  so  that  only  a  skilled  professor  could 
effectually  detect  and  expose  his  hypocrisy. 
"Which  of  these  conflicting  representations 
are  we  to  accept  ?  Dare  we  assume  that  a 
Christian  minister  of  our  church  is  a  willful 
deceiver  and  a  hypocrite,  without  unques- 
tionable proof?  We  are  told  that  his  ex- 
pressions, "trinity,"  "divinity,"  "regenera- 
tion," etc.,  might  all  be  used  by  a  high  Unita- 
rian, like  James  Freeman  Clarke,  and  that 
Prof.  Swing  uses  such  words,  sometimes  out 
of  their  ordinary,  scriptural  sense.  This  is 
partly  true  and  partly  not  true.  James 
Freeman  Clarke  in  the  work  appealed  to,  is 
avowedly  endeavoring  to  approach  the  or- 
thodox in  the  use  of  terms,  and  does  use  such 
words  as  "Trinity,"  "  Divinity  of  Christ," 
and  "Eegeneration,"  with  explanations  of 
the  Unitarian  sense  in  which  they  are  used. 
But  Prof.  Swing  uses  them  from  his  evan- 
gelical standpoint,  without  explanation,  and 
without  any  hint  of  a  Unitarian  sense. 

What  does  common  honesty  require  of  us 
in  such  a  case?  Why,  clearly  to  accept  his 
language,  not  in  some  forced  sense,  but  in  its 
obvious  meaning,  assuming  that  he  is  not  a 
knave.  And  as  to  an  occasional  use  of  such 
words  as  "divine,"  respecting  the  spiritual 
nature  and  relations  of  man,  by  such  a  poetic 
writer,  it  is  easy  to  see  the  meaning  :  while 
it  is  impossible  to  interpret  the  word  "divin- 
ity," as  applied  to  Christ,  in  any  such  infer- 
ior sense,  in  many  passages.  For  example, 
in  the  sermon  entitled  "  The  world's 
great  need,"  we  find  these  words:  "In 
religion  it  is  not  otherwise,  and  hence 
most  useful  muat  be  the  form  that  makes 
of  Christ  a  divine  being,  and  invites 
the    heart  to    move  about    such    a    centre 


of  power,  holiness  and  love."  *  * 
*  *  *  "The  moment  you  declare  Christ 
only  a  human  being,  you  have  weakened  his 
influence  upon  the  soul."  Does  Prof.  Swing 
use  the  term  "divinity"  in  the  high  Arian 
sense?  Not  so,  says  Prof.  Patton,  for  he  is 
a  Sabellian,  or  indorses  Sabellianism.  But 
the  Sabellians  do  not  scruple  to  call  Christ 
God — e.  g.  the  Swedenborgians.  If,  there- 
fore, Prof.  Swing  had  used  the  word  "Deity," 
in  speaking  of  Christ,  it  would  not  have 
satisfied  Prof.  Patton  any  better  than  the 
word  he  has  used,  for  even  Dr.  Chapin  calls 
Christ  God. 

In  the  same  sermon  the  moral  and  spirit- 
ual ruin  of  man,  individual  regeneration  by 
the  Holy  Spirit,  and  a  new  heart,  are  clearly 
recognized.  But  here  again,  we  shall  have 
the  subterfuge  of  a  deceptive  use  of  language, 
to  explain  away  this  plain  use  of  words.  So, 
when  Prof.  Swing  tells  us  of  the  final  separa- 
tion between  the  righteous  and  the  wicked, 
we  are  told  that  his  words  are  equivocal,  and 
then  an  appeal  is  made  to  James  Freeman 
Clarke  to  show  that  even  the  phrase  "eternal 
punishment"  is  equivocal.  Then  all  the 
words  of  Scripture  are  equivocal,  and  we  can 
find  nothing  truly  evangelical  in  the  Four 
Gospels,  or  in  the  writings  of  the  apostles. 
Does  the  cause  of  truth  require  such  treat- 
ment of  a  man's  language,  or  such  an  assault 
upon  his  honesty,  without  a  shadow  of  proof? 
It  will  not  do. 

5.  Again:  We  are  to  interpret  the  language 
of  Prof.  Swing  in  the  light  of  his  mental 
peculiarities,  his  purpose  in  preaching,  and 
his  circumstances. 

His  mind  is  semi-poetical,  semi-philosoph- 
ical. 

Such  men  are  always  prone  to  express 
themselves  obscurely,  while  frequently  using 
language  with  great  perspicuity, — e.  g.  F. 
D.  Maurice.  Prof.  Swing  sometimes  calls 
the  gospel  "a  mode  of  virtue :"  sometimes 
he  calls  God  a  "peace,"  etc.,  as  John  calls 
him  "love"  and  "light."  His  general  mean- 
ing is  not  obscure,  if  his  words  are  fsiirly 
dealt  with.  But  the  words  of  Jesus  will  not 
bear  torture.  Prof.  Swing  has  felt  long  and 
deeply  the  need  of  a  better  Christian  moral- 
itj'-  in  society,  and  hence  he  dwells  much  on 
the  necessity  and  value  of  good  works,  as 
James  did.  He  distinctly  recognizes  the 
atonement  and  forgiveness  as  parts  of  salva- 
tion, but  lays  out  his  strength  on  the  side  of 
works,  like  James,  whose  letter  Luther  calls 


REV.  DR.  R.  W.  PATTERSON'S  OPINION. 


193 


an  epistle  of  straw.  It  is  in  this  connection 
that  he  is  alleged  to  sneer  at  imputation  and 
other  doctrines  ;  hut  it  is  at  the  perversion  of 
them  that  he  aims  his  shafts,  as  our  Saviour 
quoted  the  language  of  Moses  as  misapplied 
by  the  ancients,  when  exposing  their  false 
constructions. 

Lastly,  on  this  point,  Prof.  Swing  has 
preached  since  the  fire,  in  peculiar  circum- 
stances,— once  each  Sabbath  to  a  mass  of 
people,  most  of  whom  were  not  regular 
hearers,  and  many  of  whom  were  not  con- 
vinced that  the  Scriptures  were  from  God. 
In  such  circumstances  he  was  naturally  led 
to  adapt  his  sermons  on  the  Sabbath  mainly 
to  his  outside  hearers,  and  reserve  his  more 
doctrinal  addresses  to  his  church  for  "Wednes- 
day evening  lectures.  Does  it  argue  un- 
faithfulness in  him  to  have  shaped  his  dis- 
courses for  the  benefit  of  the  multitude  whom 
he  wished  to  bring  to  the  acknowledgment 
of  revealed  religion  ?  Some  of  us  might  have 
pursued  a  different  course,  but  would  it  have 
been  a  wiser  course?  It  is  easy  to  find  fault 
with  a  man  who  followeth  not  us.  But  is  it 
charitable  and  Christian  to  act  the  enemy 
towards  a  man  because  he  may  gather  about 
him  a  crowd  of  Unitarians  or  Universalists, 
or  miscellaneous  people,  whom  he  tries  to 
draw  gradually  to  the  Cross  of  the  Redeemer, 
— a  multitude  whom  no  one  else  among  us  is 
able  to  reach  ?  "  Your  master  receiveth 
sinners  and  eateth  with  them,"  was  a  com- 
plaint made  long  ago. 

5.  Awordnowinregard  to  the  testimony  in 
this  case.  Besides  the  stand-point  of  Prof. 
Swing  as  a  Presbyterian  minister,  it  is  legiti- 
mate to  appeal  to  his  preaching  and  teaching 
before  he  ministered  to  the  Fourth  Presby- 
terian Church,  which  embraces  the  member- 
ship of  his  former  church  with  that  of  the 
Fourth  Church.  It  is  also  relevant  to  ap- 
peal to  his  lectures  and  private  avowels.  For 
all  these  are  explanatory  of  his  stand-point, 
and  help  to  explain  his  language  in  the  light 
of  his  actual  views  as  they  are  thus  more 
fully  revealed,  both  for  the  time  before  and 
after  the  Fourth  Church  was  organized. 
But  the  evidence  under  all  these  heads  is 
clear  and  unequivocal,  unless  we  assume  that 
his  elders  were  too  stupid  to  know  what  evan- 
gelical preaching  is,  or  that  he  has  been  act- 
ing the  part  of  an  adroit  deceiver.  And 
Bome  of  the  testimony  in  this  category  is 
positive  and  clear,  as  the  report  of  special 
theological  conversations  with  Prof.   Swing 


on  most  of  the  points  in  question.  The  only 
answer  to  this  is,  that  Prof.  Swing  has 
thrown  dust  in  the  eyes  of  men  who  claim  to 
know  something  about  theology,  though  of 
course,  less  skillful  in  detecting  errors  than 
the  prosecutor.  Thus  we  are  reduced  again 
to  the  conclusion,  either  that  Prof.  Patton's 
inferences  are  false,  or  else  that  Prof.  Swing, 
for  whose  integrity  the  prosecutor  says  he 
has  a  high  respect,  is  an  artful  hypocrite. 
There  is  absolutely  no  other  alternative.  Let 
those  who  know  Prof.  Swing  judge  which 
conclusion  is  the  more  likely  to  be  correct. 

That  Prof.  Swingoften  uses  language  with- 
out stopping  to  explain  his  meaning,  which 
may  be  easily  misunderstood  if  separated 
from  his  main  design  and  taken  out  of  its 
connection,  I  freely  admit;  and,  therefore, 
he  often  says  in  one  discourse  what  he 
might  be  construed  as  contradicting  in 
another  discourse.  But  I  repeat  that  his 
language  in  such  cases  should  be  charitably 
construed,  in  the  light  of  his  views,  as  more 
deliberately  declared  at  other  times.  Few 
writers  are  really  more  self-consistent,  and 
yet  very  few  can  be  so  easily  made  to  seem 
self-contradictory. 

6.  Let  us  now  proceed  to  notice  the  several 
points  embraced  in  the  charges  and  specifica- 
tions, as  far  as  they  appear  to  merit  special 
attention  after  what  has  been  said.  And  for 
the  sake  of  avoiding  confusion,  I  will  take 
first,  the  positive  allegations  against  Prof. 
Swing's  soundness  in  the  faith,  and  then 
consider  the  charge  of  unfaithfulness.  For 
in  his  ministerial  vows  he  first  adopted  the 
confession  as  containing  a  system,  and  then 
promised  to  be  faithful.  Let  us  follow  the 
same  order. 

Thefirst  five  specifications  under  Charge 
First  are  alleged  in  support  of  Charge  Sec- 
ond. These  specifications  if  in  the  main  es- 
tablished, would  not  prove  that  Prof.  Swing 
does  not  honestly  receive  and  adopt  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith  as  containing  the  system  of 
doctrine  taught  in  the  holy  Scriptures.  They 
might  raise  a  presumption  against  the  honesty 
of  his  subscription  to  the  Confession  as  re- 
quired, but  it  would  remain  to  be  said  that 
he  might  believe  that  the  doctrines  of  the 
Confession  are  more  or  less  clearly  taught  in 
the  Scriptures,  and  yet  he  might  regard  many 
of  them  as  not  having  the  prominence  in 
Scripture  which  they  have  in  the  Confession, 
and  therefore  he  might  even  ridicule  the  em- 
phasis which  is  laid  upon  many  of  them  as 


194 


THE  TEIAL  OF  EEV.  DAVID  SWING. 


they  are  insisted  upon  in  many  pulpits.  But, 
of  course,  I  do  not  admit  that  these  five 
specifications  have  been  established.  I  sim- 
ply pass  them  over  till  I  come  to  the  charge 
of  unfaithfulness,  because  it  will  be  admitted 
that  these  are  only  auxiliary  to  the  other 
and  graver  allegations  which  I  am  about  to 
consider. 

The  Seventh  Specification  is  the  next 
one  relied  on  by  the  prosecutor  to  sustain 
the  charge  of  heresy.  This  specification  al- 
leges that  Prof.  Swing  teaches  a  phase  of 
evolution  which  the  prosecutor  deems  hereti- 
cal. It  is  a  pity  to  disturb  the  relevancy  of 
Prof.  Patton's  interesting  lecture  on  evolu- 
tion, but  Prof.  Swing  does  not  accept  any 
phase  of  it,  as  commonly  understood.  In 
his  sermon  on  "The  Lost  Paradise,"  (Truths 
for  To-day)  he  says:  "  The  theory  most  in 
confiict  with  this  little  picture  of  primitive 
man  is  the  almost  popular  motion  that  man 
is  a  gradual  result  of  progress  in  the  animal 
kingdom,  and  never  had  a  paradise,  but  is 
on  the  way  towards  one,  from  a  cellular  and 
electric  starting  point  a  million  years  back." 
And  he  closes  the  conclusive  paragraph  with 
these  words:  "  The  best  reason  I  can  myself 
I,  bring  to  bear  upon  this  matter  leads  me  to 
see  man  setting  forth  as  man,  and  setting 
\  forth  from  a  Creator  ;  hence  he  had  a  place 
(  which  we  may  call  Eden,  and  easily  reason 
may  join  the  Bible  in  giving  it  river  banks, 
I  and  trees,  and  flowers,  and  the  song  of 
/  birds."  But  it  will  be  said  that  the  quota- 
tions in  the  specifications  at  least  prove  that 
Prof.  Swing  holds  that  man  at  first  occupied 
a  very  low  plane,  from  which  he  gradually 
came  up  afterwards;  and  that  he  was  not 
personally  holy  ;  also  that  religion  made  the 
Bible,  etc.  But  how  does  it  appear  that 
Adam  was  highly  civilized  and  enlightened 
by  special,  miraculous  agency  ?  Very  pos- 
sibly he  may  have  been,  but  who  knows  ? 
Prof.  Swing  says  ("  Value  of  Yesterday,"  p. 
72,)  "  That  according  to  the  only  two  theo- 
ries, there  was  but  one  human  being  in  the 
outset ;  and  that  one  a  human  being  defect- 
ive in  language,  in  art,  in  learning,  in  hope, 
in  memory."  Does  the  prosecutor  know  that 
this  was  not  so  ?  Again  Prof.  Swing  says 
(page  73)  :  "  Could  the  divine  virtue  be  per- 
ceived by  a  being  that  had  not  perceived 
sin  ?''  He  thus  asserts  that  man  was  at  first 
holy,  and  when  he  speaks  before  of  "  the  day 
when  earth  possessed  but  one  man  or  family, 
and  that  one  without  language,  and  without 


learning,  and  without  virtue,''  he  evidently 
means  "defective  in  language,  art  and  learn- 
ing;" and  without  virtue,  at  least  after  the 
fall.  This  does  not  contradict  our  confession 
at  all.  As  to  the  display  of  the  divine  per- 
fections in  the  first  human  being,  the  mean- 
ing is  made  plain  when  it  is  said  aferwards 
that  "  in  order  that  God  should  reveal  Him- 
self, a  race  was  necessary,"  etc.,  not  in  order 
to  some  revelation,  but  in  order  to  make  any 
full  display  of  His  attributes.  How  could 
God  display  His  attributes  through  one  man 
when  there  were  no  other  human  beings  to 
witness  the  display  ?  But  Prof.  Swing  says 
the  Bible  did  not  create  religion.  Did  it? 
Or  was  there  a  true  religion  before  Moses 
wrote  his  five  books?  "Our  own  nature," 
says  Prof.  Swing,  "  has  forced  up  Christianity 
out  of  the  spirits  rich  depths."  But  he  im- 
mediately adds,  by  way  of  explanation,  "  as 
the  hidden  music  of  the  old  fabulous  statue 
became  vocal  when  the  sun  rose  each  morn- 
ing upon  it,  so  when  Christ  came  he  only 
awakened  to  its  divinest  strain  a  music  whose 
origin  was  far  above  and  back  of  Bethlehem 
and  the  cross."  Christianity  was  not,  then, 
a  spontaneous  development  of  man's  nature, 
but  a  fruit  of  Christ's  appeal  to  man's  reli- 
gious susceptibility.  But  enough  on  this 
specification. 

Specification  eighth  demands  but  a  word 
of  remark.  The  illustrations  used  by  Prof. 
Swing  show  thai  by  "standards"  he  means 
exact  measures  of  moral  ideas.  And  have 
we  any  such  standards  ?  The  passages  quo- 
ted do  not  show  at  all  that  he  denies  that  we 
have  general  and  infallible  rules  of  duty. 
It  is  from  different  and  remote  parts  of  the 
discourse  that  the  other  quotations  are  made, 
and  the  passages  simply  state  the  notorious 
fact  that  the  creeds  of  men  are  modified  to  a 
great  extent  by  their  surroundings,  for  bet- 
ter or  for  worse,  while  a  peculiar  demand  is 
recognized  for  particular  themes  in  each 
age.  It  may  be  that  Prof.  Swing  and  others 
of  us  yield  too  far  to  this  demand,  but  this 
argues  neither  such  heresy  nor  unfaithful- 
ness as  to  constitute   an  ecclesiastical  offense. 

Specification  ninth  accuses  Prof.  Swing  of 
Sabellianism,  and  alleges  that  he  treats  light- 
ly the  church  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  But 
the  alleged  proof  of  Sabellianism  utterly 
breaks  down,  because  it  consists  in  a  statement 
which  we  all  admit  to  be  true,  and  we  are 
certainly  not  all  Sabellians.  The  statement 
is  "that  Christianity  bears  readily  the  idea 


KEY.  DR.  E.  W.  PATTERSON'S  OPINION. 


195 


of  three  offices,  and  permits  the  one  God  to 
appear  in  Father  or  Son  or  Spirit."  Who 
denies  this  except  Unitarians?  Are  there 
not  three  offices,  and  does  not  the  one  God 
appear  in  each  ?  Prof.  Swing  does  not  here 
assert  that  there  is  an  eternal  distinction  of 
persons  in  the  divine  nature;  he  simply  speaks 
of  the  three-fold  revelation  of  the  one  God  in 
His  practical  relations  to  men,  and  this  he 
thinks  is  the  side  on  which  the  doctrine  of 
the  trinity  can  be  experienced,  while  the 
scientific  statement  of  it,  he  thinks,  cannot 
be  so  brought  home  to  the  heart  as  to  test  its 
truth.  I  have  seen  substantially  this  state- 
ment defended  long  ago,  by  an  orthodox 
German  writer.  Prof.  Swing's  Sabellian- 
ism,  if  real,  ought  to  make  it  easy  for  him  to 
call  Christ  God,  which  the  prosecutor  charges 
that  he  studiously  avoids.  The  allegation  is 
not  proved,  and  I  know  it  is  untrue,  for 
Prof.  Swing  told  me  his  views  on  that  point 
before  this  prosecution  was  commenced. 

Specification  tenth  is  not  relied  on  as 
proof  of  heresy,  and  I  pass  over  it  for  the 
present. 

Specification  eleventh  is  based  chiefly  on 
the  declaration  that  "the  nations  await  with 
tears  of  past  sorrow  a  religion  that  shall  in- 
deed baptize  men  and  children,  either  or 
both;  but  counting  this  only  a  beautiful 
form,  shall  take  the  souls  of  men  into  the 
atmosphere  of  Jesus,  and  into  the  all-per- 
vading presence  of  God."  Prof.  Swing  does 
not  mean  that  the  religion  of  Christianity  is 
to  be  superseded  by  some  other  religion,  but 
that|the  practical  religion  of  our  time  will  give 
place  to  a  better  and  more  scriptural  type  of 
Christianity,  which  will  treat  baptism  not 
as  a  saving  ordinance,  having  in  it  an  inhe- 
rent efficacy,  but  only  as  a  beautiful  form 
— beautiful  because  a  significant  and  impres- 
sive divine  ordinance.  And  this  is  all  that 
many  of  our  ministers  hold  in  regard  to 
baptism,  if  they  do  come  short  of  the  Con- 
fession, as  interpreted  by  the  prosecutor.  I 
would  not  myself  adopt  the  words  of  Prof. 
Swing  on  this  subject,  but  neither  would  I 
indorse  the  statement  that  the  doctrine  of 
our  Confession  is  partly  sacramentarian.  I 
see  neither  heresy  nor  flijipancy  in  the  lan- 
guage which  Prof.  Patton  deems  so  danger- 
ous. 

The  twelfth  specification  alleges  that  Prof. 
Swing  contradicts  the  Confession  because  he 
seems  to  admit  that  Socrates  and  Penelope 
were  more  cordially  welcomed  into  heaven 


than  the  notorious  Catharine  II.  of  Russia 
Well,  I  do  not  know  that  any  of  them  are 
in  heaven,  and  I  do  not  suppose  Prof.  Swing 
meant  to  be  understood  as  asserting  that 
they  are.  But  if  such  was  his  meaning  he 
did  not  differ  from  prominent  Presbyterian 
ministers  of  the  former  Old  School  Church, 
who  have  believed  that  some  rare  individu- 
als of  the  heathen  world  may  have  exercised 
repentance  and  faith  toward  God  so  as  to  be 
saved  through  an  atoning  sacrifice  of  which 
they  were  ignorant.  And  I  do  not  see 
that  the  Confession  pronounces  on  that 
question. 

As  to  specification  thirteenth,  the  proof 
seems  to  me  to  be  wholly  inconclusive  and  I 
will  not  dwell  on  it. 

And  I  pass  over  specification  fourteenth 
with  the  single  remark  that  our  Confession 
does  not  assert  that  man  receives  personally 
a  special  call  to  the  ministry,  but  only  that 
the  office  is  one  of  divine  appointment,  which 
Prof.  Swing  fully  admits. 

Specification  fifteenth  is  based  upon  Prof. 
Swing's  remarks  respecting  gift  worship. 
But  Prof.  Swing  does  not  deny  that  God 
commanded  the  Jews  to  offer  sacrifices  as 
shadows  of  the  Redeemer's  sacrificial  death. 
He  expressly  says  that  the  sacrifices  of  old 
were  "the  shadow  of  a  coming  reality."  And 
he  recognizes  their  "relation  to  a  coming 
Calvary."  How,  then,  does  this  teaching 
conflict  with  the  Confession  of  Faith  ? 

There  is  manifestly  no  conflict. 

I  pass  the  sixteenth  specification  for  the 
present,  as  it  is  not  relied  on  as  proof  of  the 
charge  for  heresy. 

The  seventeenth  specification  has  not  been 
proved,  in  the  sense  of  the  prosecutor.  Prof. 
Swing,  like  every  other  man  who  takes  a 
wide  range  in  the  use  of  language,  and  like 
the  Bible  itself,  does  sometimes  employ  the 
same  terms  to  convey  diff'erent  ideas.  But 
the  connection  always  makes  his  meaning 
plain  in  such  cases.  I  have  in  my  possession 
a  sermon  by  Dr.  Post,  of  St.  Louis,  on  Na- 
tional Regeneration,  in  which  the  word  re- 
generation is  not  used  in  its  scriptural  sense 
at  all.  But  there  is  no  man  who  holds  more 
firmly  than  Dr.  Post  to  the  doctrine  of  per- 
sonal regeneration  by  the  Divine  Spirit.  So 
our  Saviour  speaks  of  the  regeneration  when 
the  Son  of  Man  shall  come  in  His  glory.  But 
our  Saviour  was  orthodox,  as  I  suppose.  The 
other  words  quoted,  I  could  easily  show,  are 
employed  in  no  wider  or  more  varied  senses 


196 


THE  TKIAL  OF  EEV.  DAVID  SWING. 


'  than  are  given  to  them  in  many  diiferent  con- 
nections in  scripture.  But  does  it  follow  that 
when  Prof.  Swing  uses  these  words  in  connec- 
tions where  their  evangelical  import  would 
be  naturally  understood,  he  is  equivocating  ? 
A  man  who  has  a  case  to  make  out  may  say 
so,  but  scarcely  then,  if  he  wishes  to  have 
his  brother  fairly  interpreted. 

Specification  eighteenth  is  manifestly 
without  proof,  for  it  is  based  on  the  false 
assumption  that  to  maintain  that  unbelief 
does  not  destroy  the  soul  by  an  arbitrary 
decree — that  is,  a  decree  depending  merely 
on  will — is  to  deny  the  judicial  condemna- 
tion of  the  lost.  But  the  words  used  imply 
no  such  thing.  Prof.  Swing  assures  us  that 
he  meant  no  such  thing.  Such  a  thought 
never  occurred  to  my  mind  on  hearing  that 
very  language  used  in  the  pulpit. 

Specification  nineteenth  seems  to  me  to 
rest  wholly  upon  a  misconstruction  of  Prof. 
Swing's  language.  Is  not  righteousness  a 
gorgeous  bloom  from  the  soil  of  faith  ?  Does 
not  the  prosecutor  teach  this  in  efiFect  when 
he  exalts  the  holy  life  of  a  very  exemplary 
and  zealous  Christian  friend  after  his  decease  ? 
Is  not  a  living  faith  the  best  subjective  cause 
of  a  holy  life  ?  Can  any  other  grace  so  save 
the  soul,  either  objectively  or  subjectively  ? 
Would  not  faith  be  the  law  of  salvation  in 
the  Mahommedan  or  Buddhist  system  "if," 
as  Prof.  Swing  says,  "  there  were  enough 
truth — truth  of  morals  and  redemption — in 
those  systems  to  save  the  soul?"  And  was 
not  faith  a  saving  grace  before  the  New 
Testament  was  written  ?  Jlust  it  not  be  a 
foremost  exercise  in  any  system  of  religion? 
Let  us  treat  this  case  with  reasonable  fair- 
ness. Prof.  Swing  does  not  teach  that  salva- 
tion by  faith  is  not  peculiar  to  revealed 
religion,  nor  does  he  teach  that  salvation  is 
a  matter  of  degree.  The  passages  quoted 
contain  no  such  ideas. 

Specification  twentieth  accuses  Professor 
Swing  of  teaching  that  men  are  saved  by 
■works.  But  he  abundantly  teaches  that 
salvation  is  by  the  cross  and  by  faith  as  well 
as  works;  and  therefore,  he  says  that  our  reli- 
gion is  "many  sided."  He  does  not  mean,  evi- 
dently, that  we  are  saved  or  justified  by  work 
in  the  same  sense  in  which  we  are  justified  by 
faith.  Why  does  not  the  prosecutor  take  James 
to  task  for  asking,  "Can  faith  save  a  man?" 
and  for  saying  without  explanation  •'  Ye  see 
how  that  a  man  is  justified  by  works  and  not 
by  faith  only?"     Why  does  he  not  arraign 


Jesus  Christ  for  asserting  that  in  the  final 
judgment,  the  Son  of  Man  will  say  to  those 
on^his  right  hand,  "Come  ye  blessed:"  "For 
I  was  an  hungered,  and  ye  gave  me  meat :  I 
was  thirsty  and  ye  gave  me  drink,"  etc.? 
Does  not  that  look  like  making  a  heap  of 
good  workR  the  stairway  to  heaven  ?  And 
yet  our  Lo.a  said  in  the  whole  passage,  not 
one  word  about  faith  and  imputed  righteous- 
ness as  the  instrument  and  ground  of  salva- 
tion. But  Prof.  Swing  must  be  more 
cautious  tliiin  his  master  was.  As  a  general 
proposition,  it  is  true  that,  "coming  to  the 
grave  he  can  only  look  forward  with  joy 
who  can  sweetly  look  back."  The  penitent 
thief  must  have  an  immediate  assurance  from 
his  Lord  to  take  away  all  his  misgivings. 
And  yet  salvation  is  in  another  sense  by 
faith  alone,  where  works  have  not  had  op- 
portunity to  appear  as  fruits  and  evidences. 
In  the  conclusion  of  Prof.  Swing's  Sermon 
on  "  Good  Works"  occurs  the  beautiful  pas- 
sage read  here  the  other  day:  "When  j^our 
best  works  fail  and  you  feel  their  worthless- 
ness,  fly  to  Him  whose  cross  stands  between 
you  and  God's  wrath.  Believe  in  Christ, 
and  find  peace."  This  sermon  and  other 
sermons  appealed  to  in  the  specifications  are 
among  Prof.  Swing's  endeavors  to  bring  up 
what  he  regards  as  the  neglected  side  of 
good  works  to  its  due  prominence  in  our  re- 
ligion. And  hence,  he  says:  "There  is 
nothir)g  which  society  so  much  needs  to-day 
as,  not  divine  righteousness,  but  human 
righteousness."  The  divine  righteousness  is 
present,  of  course,  where  the  human  right- 
eousness appears  as  a  fruit  of  faith  ;  and  it  is 
the  outward  view  that  Prof.  Swing  is  dis- 
cussing. Is  all  this  contrary  to  the  Confes- 
sion of  Faith  ?  It  is  said  I  know,  that  Prof. 
Swing  does  not  believe  in  justification  at  all 
in  the  sense  of  pardon  through  the  Redeem- 
er's sacrifice.  What,  then,  does  he  mean 
when  he  says:  "A  legal  salvation  may  be 
preliminary  or  a  concomitant,  but  cannot  in 
morals  be  the  chief  salvation?"  and  when 
he  says  again  :  "  Pardon  and  atonement  form 
parts  of  the  great  salvation?" 

These  words  must  be  taken  in  their  evan- 
gelical and  ordinary  sense,  unless  there  is 
evidence  to  the  contrary.  And  so  I  at  once 
understood  them  wlien  the  sermon  was 
preached  in  my  hearing  a  few  weeks  ago. 
Then  in  the  sermon  on  "Good  Works,"  we 
read  as  follows  :  "  That  grand  text  (The  just 
shall  live  by  faith),  which  helped  to  re  vol  u- 


KEV.  DE.  K.  W.  PATTERSON'S  OPINION. 


197 


tionizc  the  Christian  world  in  the  sixteenth 
century,  having  by  its  final  word  set  us  free 
from  Komish  error  and  despair,  ought  now 
by  its  initial  wor  d  to  set  us  free  from  public 
and  private  neglect  of  a  virtuous  character." 
But  how  did  its  final  word,  "  faith  '"  set  men 
free  in  the  sixteenth  century  ?  "Why  simply 
and  only  as  the  pivot  of  the  doctrine  of  Justi- 
fication by  Faith.  I  say,  then,  that  justifi- 
cation by  faith  is  not  denied,  but  distinctly 
recognized  in  these  sermons  of  Prof.  Swing, 
while  the  relation  of  faith  and  good  works  to 
salvation  from  the  power  of  sin  are  more 
earnestly  emphasized,  because  they  were 
thought  to  have  been  too  much  neglected. 

I  pass  over  specification  twenty-second,  as 
it  has  not  been  insisted  upon  in  this  trial. 
Specifications  twenty-third  and  twenty-fourth 
will  be  noticed  together,  as  they  both  refer  to 
the  inspiration  and  infallibility  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. Prof.  Swing's  view  of  the  inspiration 
and  infallibility  of  the  Scriptures  I  understand 
to  be  as  follows  :  He  holds  to  the  plenary  in- 
spiration of  the  Bible  in  the  sense  that  he 
believes  it  all  to  be  God's  Word.  But  some 
portions  of  the  Old  Testament,  for  example, 
certain  laws  of  Moses,  and  the  imprecatory 
Psalms,  he  thinks  were  given  by  God  for 
the  regulation  or  use  of  the  Hebrew  people 
in  a  low  stage  of  the  world's  advancement, 
and  when  the  policy  of  God  towards  society 
within  and  without  the  church  was  essenti- 
ally ditferent  from  what  it  was  after  Christ 
came.  Hence,  in  his  opinion,  many  of  the 
Mosaic  statutes  tolerated  and  regulated  prac- 
tices that  were  not  morally  right,  and  the 
imprecatory  Psalms  expressed  sentiments 
that  would  be  "bad"  for  us,  though  good 
enough  for  the  Hebrews  when  they  were 
given  ;  and  accordingly  he  speaks  of  such 
laws  and  Psalms  as  having  been  repealed  by 
our  Saviour. 

Many  of  his  reasonings  on  this  subject 
never  sati.'^fied  my  mind.  Particularly  un- 
satisfactory is  his  explanation  of  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  Canaanites,  which  he  regards  as 
having  been  perndtted,  but  not  sanctioned  by 
Jehovah.  This  seems  to  me  a  mistaken 
view  ;  for,  although  the  Hebrew  language 
does  admit  of  doubt  in  many  cases  where  the 
imperative  word  is  used,  it  seems  to  me  plain 
from  several  passages  that  God  did  command 
the  Israelites  to  destroy  the  Canaanites  be- 
cause the  cup  of  their  iniquity  was  full.  But 
still  it  does  not  appear  that  Prof.  Swing 
meant  to  deny  that  the  inspiration  of  Moses 


was  plenary  on  the  subj  ects  about  which  he  pro- 
fessefl  to  have  divine  direction.  The  question 
becomes  one  of  interpretation  and  not  one  of 
inspiration  ;  and  we  must  remember  that  even 
Prof.  J.  D.  Michaelis,  in  the  endeavor  to  get 
over  the  acknowledged  difficulty  regarding 
the  destructive  wars  of  the  Jews,  adopted  ut- 
terly untenable  interpretations  of  Scripture, 
as  was  shown  by  the  late  Dr.  Hengsten- 
berg. 

Some  of  Prof.  Swing's  remarks  in  regard 
to  the  109th.  Psalm,  seem  to  me  open  to  ex- 
ception. But  it  remains  true  that  he  holds 
that  that  psalm  was  given  by  God  to  the  He- 
brews for  a  temporary  purpose,  like  the  Mo- 
saic law  of  divorce.  And  as  to  "eclecticism," 
he  says  he  would  erase  nothing  from  the  Old 
Testament  except  by  the  special  authority  of 
Jesus  Christ.  Thus,  again,  only  a  question 
of  interpretation  is  raised,  unless  we  criticise 
his  principle  in  regard  to  the  inspiration  of 
men  for  the  accomplishment  of  revengeful 
purposes ;  which  raises  a  moral  question  of 
no  small  difficulty,  while  it  leaves  his  doc- 
trine of  inspiration,  in  general,  free  from 
fundamental  objection.  As  to  Prof.  Swing's 
view  of  the  apocalypse,  on  which  Prof.  Pat- 
ton  lays  so  much  stress,  it  does  not  involve 
the  question  of  the  inspiration  or  infallibility 
of  scripture  at  all.  It  is  purely  a  matter  of 
interpretation.  I  heard  substantially  the 
same  theory  advanced  by  a  prominent  ortho- 
dox minister  thirty-three  years  ago.  Prof. 
Swing  holds  that  John's  imagination  was 
elevated  by  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  vision  of 
the  Kevelation,  although  no  outline  of  future 
history  was  contemplated  in  those  sublime 
scenes.  As  to  his  mode  of  interpreting  the 
apocalypse,  I  difler  from  him  for  several  rea- 
sons. But  the  Confession  of  Faith  does  not 
tell  us  how  to  interpret  that  very  difficult 
book,  upon  which  the  ingenuity  of  the  ablest 
commentators  has  been  exercised  to  but  little 
purpose  for  almost  1800  years.  1  will  only 
add,  in  regard  to  the  imprecatory  psalms,  that 
the  beloved  Albt  rt  Biirne.<,  who  lived  and 
died  in  our  church  unquestioned  as  to  that 
subject,  took  the  ground,  erroneously,  I  think, 
that  the  sentiments  of  those  psalms  were  not 
inspired,  but  that  the  psalms  themselves  were 
a  truthful  record  of  David's  vindictive  feel- 
ings, to  which  God  never  gave  His  sanction. 
It  is  wonderful  that  no  zealous  champion  of 
orthodoxy  ever  arraigned  him  for  the  heresy 
of  his  last  commentary.  Prof.  Swing's  view 
seems  to  me  less  objectionable   than   that  of 


198 


THE  TRIAL  OF  EEV.  DAVID  SWING. 


Mr.  Barnes,  and  not  at  all  on  the  same  plane 
with  the  views  of  Dr.  McKaig. 

The  first  specification,  under  Charge  Sec- 
ond, failed  for  the  lack  of  witnesses. 

The  second  and  third  specifications  under 
this  head  failed  through  the  character  of  Mr. 
Shufeldt's  testimony,  and  for  the  lack  of 
more  than  one  witness.  Mr.  Shufeldt  could 
not  certainly  remember  that  Prof.  Swing 
said  to  him  that  any  one  of  the  five  points  of 
Calvinism  had  been  abandoned  by  him  or  bis 
church.  He  could  only  recollect  that  one  or 
two  branches  of  a  celebrated  ti-ee  were  said 
to  have  fallen  off,  one  of  which  was  infant 
damnation. 

As  no  particular  use  was  made  of  specifi- 
cation four  under  charge  second,  I  will  not 
take  time  to  examine  it. 

I  have  thus  noticed,  of  necessity,  in  a  hur- 
ried and  brief  manner,  all  the  alleged  direct 
proofs  that  Prof.  Swing  does  not  sincerely 
believe  and  adopt  the  Confession  of  Faith  as 
containing  the  system  of  doctrine  taught  in 
the  Holy  Scriptures.  And  if  I  am  not  great- 
ly mistaken,  not  one  of  the  specifications 
has  been  proved  or  made  probable.  Nay,  it 
seems  to  me  that  most  of  them  have  been 
disproved. 

It  has  been  said  that  Prof,  Swing  does  not 
profess  to  belong  to  the  church  historical, 
and  that  he  only  claims  to  hold  the  articles 
of  the  evangelical  as  contradistinguished  to 
the  Calvinistic  faiths  This,  however,  is  a 
grave  mistake.  Like  a  great  many  of  our 
ministers,  he  believes  that  our  church  ought 
not  to  exclude  any  truly  evangelical  and 
qualified  man  from  its  ministry,  as  it  does 
not  exclude  any  evangelical  person  from 
its  communion.  But  personally  he  claims 
to  hold  the  general  creed,  as  rendered 
by  the  former  New  School  theologians. 
Accordingly  he  avows  his  belief  in  Divine 
decrees.  ["Truths  for  To-day,"  page  246.] 
He  tells  us  in  his  "Declaration,"  what 
phases  of  supposed  Calvinism  they  are 
which  he  rejects,  viz:  the  doctrine  of  fatal- 
ism as  implied  in  the  perfect  independence 
of  God  as  to  all  human  conduct,  the  ultra 
form  of  human  inability,  the  overstatement 
of  the  ideas  of  salvation  by  faith,  and  the 
terrific  doctrine  of  hell  that  has  been  often 
taught.  But  the  members  of  this  Presby- 
tery all  profess  to  repudiate  these  phases  of 
doctrine  as  he  explains  them.  How,  then, 
does  his  rejection  of  them,  as  belonging  to 
the  church  historical,  prove  that  he  does  not 


as  sincerely  receive  and  adopt  the  system  of 
doctrine  taught  in  the  Confession  as  any  of 
us  ?  Whatever  he  may  mean  by  the  church 
actual  he  does  not  regard  it  as  more  lax  in 
faith  than  the  Evangelical  Alliance.  And 
he  claims  to  go  beyond  this  in  his  own  faith 
as  far  as  New  School  Presbyterianism  goes 
beyond  it.  That  is  all  the  broad-churchism 
which  he  has  yet  developed.  As  to  the  com- 
mon evangelical  doctrines,  he  has  distinctly 
stated  that  he  holds  to  the  inspiration  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures,  the  Trinity,  the  Divinity  of 
Christ,  the  office  of  Christ  as  a  mediator 
when  grasped  by  an  obedient  faith,  conver- 
sion by  God's  Spirit,  nian's.  natural  sinful- 
ness, and  the  final  separation  of  the  righte- 
ous and  the  wicked ;  and  he  tells  us  that  his 
words  are  used  in  the  evangelical  sense — an 
expression  which  has  been  made  definite  by 
the  creed  of  the  Evangelical  Alliance.  There 
is  no  honest  man  who  will  use  the  term 
"evangelical"  at  this  day,  without  explain- 
ing himself,  in  any  other  than  its  commonly 
accepted  import.  Dr.  Ptyder  clearly  under- 
stood Prof.  Swing's  avowal,  without  the 
least  doubt  as  to  his  meaning,  as  appears 
from  his  sermon  preached  on  Sabbath  be- 
fore last.  The  second  charge  against  Prof. 
Swing  is,  then,  disproved,  unless  it  can  be 
shown  either  that  New  School  men  at  large 
have  no  right  to  a  home  in  the  Presbyteri- 
an Church,  or  that  Professor  Swing  is  a 
dishonest  deceiver.  It  seems  to  me  there  can 
be  no  escape  from  this  dilemma,  for  the 
prosecutor  and  his  friends.  But  if  it  had 
been  shown  by  the  prosecutor  that  Prof. 
Swing's  views  logically  lead  to  heresy,  it 
would  not  follow  that  he  is  a  heretic  ;  for,  aa 
we  have  fully  heard,  the  General  Assembly 
of  182-i,  in  the  Craighead  case,  decided  that 
no  man  can  be  justly  pronounced  heretical 
on  the  ground  of  inferences  from  his  state- 
ments which  he  disavows,  however  logically 
those  inferences  may  be  drawn,  or  by  the 
consequences  that  may  be  shown  to  flow 
from  his  teachings.  He  must  distinctly  teach 
the  heresy  alleged,  otherwise  it  cannot  be 
regarded  as  proved.  But  all  the  proofs  of 
the  prosecutor  are  made  out  by  elaborate 
argument  and  inference,  and  not  by  direct 
evidence.  It  has  been  said,  however,  th-it 
Prof.  Swing  has  not  disavowed  the  in- 
ferences of  the  prosecutor  as  to  inspiration, 
justification,  and  salvation  by  works.  I 
answer  that  he  has  disavowed  every  one  of 
these  inferences,  either  in  his  declaration  or 


EEV.  DR.  R.  W.  PATTERSON'S  OPINION. 


199 


in  liis  public  statements.  He  lias  avowed 
himself  a  New  School  Presbyterian,  and  has 
as.serted  that  he  holds,  in  the  evangelical 
sense,  the  inspiration  of  the  scriptures,  the 
trinity,  the  divinity  of  Christ,  the  office  of 
Christ  as  mediator  when  grasped  by  an 
obedient  faith,  conversion  by  God's  Spirit, 
man's  natural  sinfulness,  and  the  final  sepa- 
ration of  the  righteous  and  the  wicked. 
Fortunately,  the  evangelical  sense  of  these 
phrases  is  well  understood,  and  not  one  of 
the  prosecutor's  inferences  on  these  points  is 
consistent  with  evangelical  doctrine.  Prof. 
Swing  did  not  further  deny  the  prosecutor's 
inferences  because  he  deemed  them  alto- 
gether illogical  and  without  support. 

But  how  are  we  to  acquit  Prof.  Swing  of 
heresy,  when  he  claims  that  he  belongs  to 
the  church  actual,  and  does  not  accept  every 
article  in  the  Confession,  according  to  its  ob- 
vious meaning  ?  What  standard  of  faith 
have  we,  if  such  a  principle  is  to  be  affirmed? 

This  seems,  at  first  thought,  a  formidable 
question.  But  it  can  be  easily  answered. 
Dr.  Hodge  and  the  prosecutor  freely  admit 
that  it  is  not  necessary  to  receive  and  adopt 
the  Confession,  ipsissima  verba,  in  order  to 
good  Presbyterianism.  It  must  be  received 
only  as  containing  the  Scriptural  system  in 
its  integrity.  And  the  prosecutor  concedes 
that  Dr.  Beman,  and  Dr.  Spear,  and  Mr. 
Barnes,  were  thus  all  good  Presbyterians. 
But  they  have  all  publicly  denied  the  federal 
headship  of  Adam,  and  the  doctrine  of  par- 
ticular atonement,  and  in>ibility,  in  what  the 
prosecutor  holds  to  be  the  sense  of  the  Con- 
fession. Dr.  Hodge,  and  the  protestors  in 
the  Old  School  Assembly  of  1868,  labored 
liard  to  show  that  there  were  many  men  al- 
lowed in  the  New  School  Church,  who  did 
not  accept  the  Confession  in  its  integrity. 
And  Dr.  Hodge  has  shown  abundantly,  in 
former  years,  that  the  doctrines  of  Dr.  Be- 
man and  Mr.  Barnes  on  atonement  and  im- 
putation, do  not  accord  with  the  language  of 
the  Confession,  and  he  has  tried  to  show  that 
their  teachings  subvert  the  whole  Evangeli- 
cal system.  Dr.  H.  solemnly  declared  of 
Mr.  Barnes'  work  on  the  Atonement,  that  it 
did  "not  contain  truth  enough  to  save  the 
soul."  And  I  have  heard  the  prosecutor 
teach  his  classes  that  the  doctrine  of  general 
atonement  logically  subverts  the  whole  doc- 
trine of  expiation,  by  assuming  a  false  theory 
in  regard  to  the  nature  of  the  atonement. 
He,  and  all  of  his  school,  maintain  that  the 


doctrine  of  general  atonement  is  contrary  to 
the  Confession.  But  still,  he  says  that  a  man 
may  be  a  good  Presbyterian  who  holds  to  this 
and  other  doctrines  which  he  believes  to  con- 
tradict the  letter  and  spirit  of  the  Confession 
on  the  subjects  in  question.  But  these  doc- 
trines, the  prosecutor  says,  do  not  destroy 
or  impair  the  integrity  of  the  system  taught 
in  the  Confession.  But  how  do  we  know 
this  ?  The  letter  of  the  Confession  is  not 
held  to  be  the  rule  of  judgment.  The  only 
answer  is,  that  the  church  must  judge,  and 
has  judged,  how  far  a  man  may  depart  from 
the  letter  of  the  Confession  and  still  sincerely 
adopt  it  as  containing  the  Scriptural  system. 
Where  then  are  our  standards?  They  are  in 
the  Bible  and  in  the  Confesision  of  Faith, 
construed  with  more  or  less  rigidness  of  ap- 
plication by  the  authorities  of  the  church. 
It  is  thus  at  last  acknowledged  that  the  letter 
of  the  Confession  is  not  our  rule  of  faith,  ex- 
cept so  far  so  as  the  church  judges  its  several 
clauses  or  articles  to  be  essential  to  the  integ- 
rity of  the  Scriptural  sj^stem.  But  even  the 
Old  School  Assembly  affirmed  that  the  Au- 
burn declaration  "contains  all  the  essentials 
of  the  Calvinistic  system " — a  declaration 
that  does  not,  by  any  means,  come  up  to  the 
entire  letter  of  the  Confession.  If,  then. 
Professor  Swing  has  not  been  proved  to  hold 
any  views  inconsistent  with  that  declaration 
— in  other  words,  with  the  New  School  The- 
ology —he  is  not  to  be  condemned  as  hereti- 
cal. And  I  hold  that  this  has  not  been 
proved ;  and  that  his  distinction  between  the 
church  actual  and  the  church  historical,  as  to 
the  letter  of  the  Confession,  is  justified  to 
that  extent ;  which  is  all  that  the  present 
purpose  requires. 

But  if  Prof.  Swing  does  honestly  receive 
and  adopt  the  Confession  of  Faith  as  contain- 
ing the  system  of  doctrine  taught  in  the  holy 
scriptures,  it  will  still  be  said  that  he  has 
been  unfaithful  in  the  duties  of  his  office. 
Let  us  attend  very  briefly  to  the  alleged 
proofs  of  this  charge,  bearing  in  mind  that 
such  unfaithfulness  must  be  shown  as  con- 
stitutes an  ecclesiastical  oflense.  And  just 
here  let  me  say  that  simple  unfaithfulness  in 
preaching  or  teaching  has  never  before,  so 
far  as  I  know,  been  made  the  subject  of  a 
grave  charge  before  any  of  our  judicatories. 
Thousands  of  ministers  have  come  short  in 
the  duties  of  their  office,  but  I  never  before 
heard  of  one  who  was  called  before  an  eccle- 
siastical tribunal  to  answer  for  this  ofiense. 


200 


THE  TKIAL  OF  EEV.  DAVID  SWING, 


Perhaps  the  reason  is  that  there  are  not 
many  Presbyteries  whose  members  are  as 
watchful  of  each  other  as  are  ours. 

The  first  of  the  specifications  under  this 
charge  that  have  not  been  noticed  already, 
pertains  to  the  use  of  equivocal  language  in 
regard  to  important  doctrines.  Here  the  first 
question  is,  How  definite  must  a  man's  refer- 
ences to  fundamental  doctrines  be,  during 
any  given  period,  to  save  him  from  the 
charge  of  ecclesiastical  unfaithfulness?  One 
man  distinctly  recognizes  leading  doctrines, 
but  seldom  defines  them  ;  another  preaches 
many  doctrinal  sermons,  but  does  not  studi- 
ously fence  against  error,  so  that  most  or  all 
of  his  language  might  be  used  by  a  Unitarian 
or  a  Universalist ;  and  another  still  preaches 
sharp-pointed  theology  from  Sabbath  to 
Sabbath,  controverting  at  every  step  the 
various  forms  of  error  in  his  way,  and  con- 
tradistinguishing truth  from  falsehood  with 
discriminating  severity.  Now,  which  of  these 
men  preaches  the  most  evangelically  ?  Who 
is  the  most  fivithful  ?  No  Presbytery  will 
agree  in  answering  this  question.  It  cannot 
be  answered  satisfactorily.  We  can  only  say 
that  a  man  who  should  be  guilty  of  inten- 
tionally using  equivocal  language  for  the 
purpose  of  concealing  his  real  views  would, 
of  course,  be  unfaithful,  and  ought  to  be 
charged  with  deception  and  hypocrisy,  and 
not  with  the  indefinite  ofiense  of  unfaithful- 
ness. But  has  any  such  intentional  deception 
been  proved  in  the  present  case  ?  This  will 
hardly  be  alleged.  It  is  said  that  the  language 
of  the  sermons  referred  to  in  the  specification 
may  be  understood  in  a  Unitarian  sense.  But 
used  by  a  Presbyterian  minister,  withoutany 
Unitarian  antecedents  or  explanations,  they 
ought,  in  all  candor,  to  be  interpreted  as 
carrying  the  best  sense  they  will  admit  of; 
and  his  own  regular  hearers  did  not  misun- 
derstand them.  The  use  of  indefinite  language 
is  not  among  the  recognized  Ecclesiastical 
oflFenses.  But  specification  second  alleges  that 
Prof.  Swing  has  been  claimed  by  Unitarians, 
and  that  knowing  this,  he  did  not  come  out 
and  disavow  in  explicit  terms  all  sympathy 
with  the  doctrines  of  Unitarianism.  But 
every  man  must  be  his  own  judge  as  to  how 
and  when  he  will  reply  to  such  allegations, 
especially  when  he  is  arraigned  at  the  bar  of 
a  particular  co-presbyter,  who  has  never  in 
his  life  gone  to  him  to  confer  on  the  subject. 

But  specification  third  alleges  that  Prof. 
Swing  has  given  the  weight  of  his  influence 


to  Unitarianism  by  lecturing  in  aid  of  a 
Unitarian  chapel,  and  in  other  ways,  and 
that  he  has  extravagantly  lauded  an  atheist. 
Now,  I  would  not  lecture  in  aid  of  a  Uni- 
tarian chapel,  neither  would  I  invite  Dr. 
Peabody  to  lecture  on  the  evidences  of 
Christianity  before  the  classes  of  a  theolog- 
ical seminary,  as  the  authorities  of  Union 
Theological  Seminary  did.  But  the  ques- 
tion as  to  our  general  treatment  of  Unitari- 
ans, whose  distinctive  views  we  are  known 
to  disapprove,  is  one  upon  which  our  church 
has  pronounced  no  judgment.  It  is  a  diffi- 
cult question  about  which  good'  men  will 
dift'er.  I  cannot  deteriuine  for  my  brother 
what  he  shall  do  by  way  of  showing  hu- 
mane sympathies  with  errorists,  in  the  hope 
of  winning  them  to  the  truth  ;  nor  can  I 
say  just  what  views  he  shall  hold  in  regard 
to  the  possibility  of  salvation  to  those  who 
in  words  discard  the  deity  of  Christ.  We 
have,  I  suppose,  a  right  to  control  the  pul- 
pits of  our  church  in  regard  to  the  admis- 
sion into  them  of  errorists.  But  beyond 
this  we  cannot  safely  go.  As  to  the  article 
in  the  Lakeside  Monthly,  it  does  disparage 
the  mere  preaching  of  doctrines  in  dogmat- 
ical forms,  as  is  sometimes  done;  but  Prof. 
Swing  did  not  intend  to  decry  all  doctrinal 
preaching;  for  he  declares  in  one  of  his  ser- 
mons that  there  can  be  no  religion  without 
doctrine.  No  one  of  us  favors  "a  mere  jum- 
ble of  doctrines,"  such  as  we  sometimes 
hear.  The  remainder  of  the  paragraph  has 
been  explained  by  the  counsel  for  the  accus- 
ed. It  was  the  purpose  of  Prof.  Swing  to 
recognize  the  practical  and  charitable  side  of 
the  preaching  in  Chicago,  as  a  characteristic 
feature,  and  not  to  confound  the  theology  of 
Dr.  Kobert  Patterson  (not  R.  W.)  with  that 
of  Kobert  Collyer.  He  had  evidently  no 
thought  of  saying  tliat  the  Gospel,  in  the 
stricter  sense,  is  one  thing  in  Chicago  and 
another  thing  in  Pittsburgh  and  St.  Louis. 
His  meaning  must  be  derived  from  the  con- 
nection in  which  the  language  is  used.  Some 
of  us  would  not  have  written  in  such  terms : 
nor  would  we  or  could  we  imitate  the  pecu- 
liar style  of  Prof.  Swing,  in  anything.  In 
regard  to  the  alleged  laudation  of  John  Stu- 
art Mill,  I  have  carefully  read  the  sermon 
referred  to,  and  it  does  not  strike  me  as 
showing  indiflerence  to  the  errors  of  Mr. 
Mill.  I  do  not  admire  the  type  of  philan- 
thropy for  which  Mr.  Mill  was  distinguish- 
ed.    But  many  good  and  wise  men  think  he 


REV.  DR.  R.  W.  PATTERSON'S  OPINION". 


201 


(lid  H  groat  work  f(ir  humanity  and  li])orty 
in  England,  notwithstanding  his  false  phi- 
losophy. It  was  this  worlv  ahjne  that  Prof. 
Swing  cotnniend(;d,  and  he  distinctly  attrib- 
uted Mr.  Mill's  huniano  views  and  spirit  to 
the  Christian  inHuonoes  of  which  he  could 
not  divest  his  mind :  while  in  the  close  of 
his  discourse  he  referred  in  terms  of  sorrow, 
though  not  of  denunciation,  to  the  great  re- 
ligious defect  of  Mr.  Mill.  Prof.  Swing 
may  have  erred  in  his  selection  of  such  a 
theme,  but  I  submit  that  he  was  not  guilty 
of  an  ecclesiastical  oflense  in  his  treatment 
of  it,  even  if  he  did  make  a  mistake  in  his 
incidental  reference  to  Victor  Cousin.  And 
here  let  me  say  that  Sir  William  Hamilton's 
philosophy,  called  by  the  prosecutor  the 
great  bulwark  against  atheistic  philosophy, 
which  was  controverted  by  Mr.  Mill,  is  also 
controverted  as  to  important  points  by  Dr. 
McCosh,  of  Princeton,  while  deductions 
from  it  were  made  use  of  by  Herbert  Spen- 
cer to  sustain  his  atheistic  system.  Logical 
conclusions  are  thus  seen  to  be  a  sword  with 
two  edges. 

The  fourth  specification  is  based  upon  mis- 
interpretations. Prof.  Swing,  in  the  pas- 
sages referred  to,  is  not  ridiculing  the  doc- 
trines in  question,  but  the  attempts  to  sustain 
them,  not  by  reason,  but  by  force.  He 
believes  and  teaches  every  one  of  them,  as 
we  have  seen,  or  shall  see,  but  he  believes 
also  in  a  respectful  treatment  of  those  who 
seem  to  be  honest  in  discarding  them.  I 
would  not  adopt  his  language,  but  I  protest 
against  the  inference  from  it  that  he  either 
denies  or  contemns  important  doctrines. 

The  fifth  specification  is  the  chief  one  in 
this  case.  It  accuses  Prof.  Swing  of  not 
preaching  or  teaching  several  Scriptural 
doctrines  within  a  given  period.  But  how 
often  must  a  man  preach  or  teach  a  doctrine 
within  a  given  period  of  time,  no  matter 
what  may  be  the  circumstances  of  his  preach- 
ing ?  Duty  on  this  subject  is  greatly  modi- 
fied by  the  conditions  of  each  preacher,  and 
the  character  of  his  hearers.  Prof.  Swing, 
after  the  fire,  preached  once  every  Sabbath, 
not  mainly  to  his  former  congregation,  but 
to  a  large  class  of  doubters,  who  would  not 
have  listened  to  elaborate  doctrinal  state- 
ments braced  up  only  by  Scriptural  proofs. 
They  were  aware  of  the  doctrines,  but  were 
not  convinced  of  the  divine  authority  of  the 
Scriptures  from  which  they  were  drawn. 
Now,  it  might  have  been  expected  that  in 


these  altogether  peculiar  circumstances  tho 
preacher  would  go  to  a  large  extent  outside 
of  Scriptural  argument  and  teaching,  and  re- 
serve his  more  strictly  doctrinal  instructions 
chiefly  for  his  Wednesday  evening  lectures 
to  his  own  people  ;  and  this  is  just  what  he 
did,  according  to  the  testimony  of  his  own 
intelligent  elders.  They  tell  us  that  he  dis- 
tinctly recognized  the  evangelical  doctrines 
in  his  sermons,  but  that  he  expounded  them 
more  in  detail  in  his  Wednesday  evening 
lectures,  which  were  unwritten.  We  are 
able  to  verify  only  the  first  part  of  this  testi- 
mony, by  appealing  to  the  published  sermons. 
And  what  should  we  expect  to  find  in  these 
sermons  ?  Not  nicely-drawn  theological  dis- 
tinctions, such  as  are  seldom  made  by  our 
ministers ;  not  quotations  from  the  catechism  ; 
which  are  not  as  fashionable  now  as  in  former 
times.  But  expressions  of  evangelical  truth 
in  substantially  the  common  language  of  the 
evangelical  churches,  without  any  elaborate 
efforts  to  exclude  the  pos.sibility  of  misinter- 
pretation by  studiously  fencing  against 
error.  I  say  we  should  expect  this, — 
I  mean  by  "we,"  charitable  hearers.  Now, 
what  do  we  find?  Just  what  might  have 
been  expected — earnest  discussion  designed 
to  show  the  reasonableness  of  Christianity 
and  some  of  its  leading  ideas,  to  the  outside 
world,  and  frequent  recognitions  of  scrip- 
tural doctrines.  These  recognitions  of  doc- 
trines are  made,  not  in  theological  phrase, 
but  in  terms  closely  akin  to  scriptural  lan- 
guage. Let  us  notice  the  points  in  the  speci- 
fication in  this  connection:  First,  "That 
Christ  is  a  propitiation  for  our  sins,"  and 
"  that  we  have  redemption  through  His 
blood."  Prof.  Swing  frequently  uses  such 
language  as  this:  ("Truths  for  To-day," 
page  111),  "As  man  by  his  sin  lost  the  image 
of  God,  so  by  faith,  that  is,  by  devotion  to 
Christ,  by  cross,  and  bj^  forgiveness,  and  by 
conversion,  rewards  of  his  love,  he  is  carried 
back  to  the  lost  holiness."  Paul  often  speaks 
of  the  cross  in  the  same  manner,  by  way  of 
recognizing  the  expiatory  sacrifice.  Thus  : 
"God  forbid  that  I  should  glory  save  in  the 
cross  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  We  can- 
not help  it  if  Unitarians  do  use  similar  lan- 
guage, in  a  different  sen^e,  which  they  never 
do  without  some  explanatory  expression  or 
circumstance.  Again,  Prof.  Swing  says : 
("Truths  for  To-day,"  page  239)  "Pardon 
and  atonement  form  parts  of  the  great  salva- 
tion, but  the  vast  idea  is  only  fully  met  and 


202 


THE  TEIAL  OF  EEV.  DAVID  SWING. 


satisfied  by  the  word  righteousness."  That 
is,  personal  holiness,  or  the  at-one-ment,  as 
the  Unitarians  phrase  it,  must  be  added  to 
the  legal  "pardon  and  atonement."  The 
meaning  is  perfectly  plain.  Again:  ("Truths 
for  To-day,"  page  121)  "  When  your  best 
works  fail,  and  you  feel  their  worthlessncss, 
fly  to  Him  whose  cross  stands  between  you 
and  God's  wrath.  Believe  in  Christ  and  find 
peace."  Now  I  say  not  only  that  this  is 
evangelical  language,  but  that  no  Unitarian, 
who  discards  the  doctrine  of  redemption  by 
vicarious  atonement,  would  use  it  without 
qualification  or  explanation.  The  prosecutor 
has  produced  no  such  example.  The  lan- 
guage used  is  more  conclusive  than  would 
have  been  the  use  of  the  scriptural  phrases 
"propitiation  for  our  sins,"  and  "redemption 
through  His  blood,"  which  the  prosecutor 
would  easily  have  found  in  Unitarian  wri- 
tings. 

Secondly,  "  That  we  are  justified  by  faith." 
This  doctrine  is  recognized  by  Prof.  Swing 
in  many  passages.  For  instance,  in  the  last 
passage  quoted  under  the  former  point : 
"Fly  to  Him  whose  cross  stands  between  you 
and  God's  wrath.  Believe  in  Him  and  find 
peace."  Is  not  that  justification  by  faith  in 
the  atoning  Saviour?  If  it  is  not,  I  do  not 
understand  the  meaning  of  language.  The 
theological  phrase  is  not  there,  but  the  idea 
is  there,  unless  we  again  accuse  the  speaker 
of  artful  deception.  And  while  this  point  is 
before  us,  let  us  ask  how  often  the  doctrine 
of  justification  by  faith  alone  is  presented  in 
direct  phrase  in  the  entire  scriptures.  Not 
more  than  two  or  three  times,  as  far  as  I  can 
remember.  The  Saviour  does  not  directly 
affirm  it,  and  James  seems  to  deny  it.  And 
yet  we  believe  that  both  James  and  the  Mas- 
ter held  it  in  its  proper  relation,  and  that 
they  were  both  evangelical  preachers. 

Thirdly,  "  That  there  is  no  other  name 
under  heaven  given  among  men  whereby  we 
must  be  saved. "  I  have  not  found  these  very 
words  in  Prof.  Swing's  sermons,  and  if  they 
were  there  it  would  be  said  that  a  Unitarian 
could  use  the  same  language.  But  the  equiv- 
alent of  these  words  may  be  often  found  in 
Prof.  Swing's  sermons.  Thus,  in  the  sermon 
"Salvation  and  Morality"  (page  104) :  "  If 
Christ  by  his  death  wrought  out  a  salvation 
for  man,  man's  heart  must  be  the  prize 
bought  with  the  sacred  life  and  death."  The 
death  of  Christ  was,  then,  a  salvation  for 
man,  for  the  world,  and  by  that  is  our  re- 


demption. Again  (p.  105),  "Paul  unfolds 
salvation  from  without.  He  tells  what  is 
necessary  outside  of  man.  Hence  Calvary, 
and  law,  and  imputation,  and  satisfaction 
came  upon  his  horizon  at  all  hours."  "Paul 
is  busy  with  the  paths  to  a  destiny ;  Christ 
with  the  beautiful  destiny  itself."  (Page 
106.)  "This  is  not  a  salvation  without  Christ. 
The  difficulty  will  be  found  to  be  that  it  has 
too  much  of  Christ  in  it."  (Page  107.) 
"  There  is  a  Christianity  that  will  save  the 
world.  It  has  not  only  a  faith,  but  it  has  a 
morality  as  essential  as  its  faith.  It  not  only 
says,  '  Believe  and  be  saved,'  but  it  assigns 
damnation  to  him  who  leads  a  wicked  life." 
This  from  a  Presbyterian  mouth  is  evangel- 
ical preaching. 

Fourthly,  "  That  Jesus  is  equal  with  God," 
and  is  "  God  manifest  in  the  flesh."  This 
language,  too,  is  used  by  Unitarians,  although 
the  genuineness  of  the  last  words,  as  Scrip- 
tures, is  disputed.  But  let  us  see  what  Prof. 
Swing  s..ys :  ("  Truths  for  To-day,"  page 
79.)  "  Hence  Christianity  bears  readily  the 
idea  of  three  offices,  and  permits  the  one  God 
to  appear  in  Father,  or  in  Son,  or  in  Spirit." 
As  much  the  one  God  in  Son  and  Spirit,  as 
in  Father.  Then  the  Son  is  God  as  much  as 
the  Father.  But  now  Prof.  Swing  has 
abandoned  the  Unitarians  and  gone  over  to 
the  Sabellians ;  and  if  he  does  call  Christ 
God  it  is  not  in  the  orthodox  sense.  For  he 
does  not  use  the  term  person  in  relatioa  to 
Christ  as  God,  and  he  speaks  of  three  offices. 
Then  let  us  turn  to  page  81,  (same  book  and 
sermon) :  "If  the  three  offices  of  God  as 
Father,  and  Redeemer,  and  Spirit,  are  made 
more  prominent  than  the  idea  that  these  three 
persotis  are  one  God,  then  what  mankind  will 
need  most,  and  use  most,  will  be  the  three 
influences,  God  as  Father,  God  as  Saviour, 
God  as  Holy  Spirit ;  and  what  he  may  make 
secondary  is  the  enigma  of  the  three  in  one, 
for  >vhy  make  prominent  things  which  are 
not  conspicuous  in  the  inspired  guide?"  It 
will  be  remembered,  let  me  here  remark, 
that  the  doctrine  of  three  persons  in  one  God 
is  nowhere  in  Scripture  distinctly  stated  in 
terms,  although  we  believe  it  to  be  necessarily 
involved  in  many  Scriptural  teachings  ;  and 
that  this  doctrine  was  not  definitely  formu- 
lated in  the  Christian  Church  for  more  than 
250  years  after  the  death  of  Christ.  It  was 
recognized  in  a  practical  but  not  in  a  specu- 
lative form,  from  the  beginning.  But  the 
present  point  is,  that  Prof.  Swing  distinctly 


EEV.  DR.  R.  W.  PATTERSON'S  OPINION. 


20S 


recognizes  a  Trinity  of  three  persons  in  one 
God.  He  is,  therefore,  neither  a  Unitarian 
nor  a  Sabellian,  and  he  has  taught  in  his  ser- 
mons that  Christ  is  God. 

Fifthly,  "That  all  Scripture  is  given  by 
inspiration  of  God."  Prof.  Swing  does  teach 
this  doctrine.  This  is  now  admitted.  He 
asserted  it  in  his  letter  to  the  Presbyterian, 
and  in  his  declaration  before  this  body,  as 
clearly  as  it  is  affirmed  in  our  Confession. 
But  immediately  we  are  met  by  the  question  : 
What  does  he  mean  by  inspiration  ?  Then 
if  he  had  reaffirmed  in  his  sermons  ever  so 
often  the  words  of  Scripture  used  in  the 
specification,  the  prosecutor  would  not  have 
been  any  better  satisfied  than  he  is.  It 
should  be  borne  in  mind  here  that  the  plenary 
inspiration  of  the  Scriptures  is  a  topic  very 
seldom  discussed  in  any  of  our  pulpits.  "Why 
then  accuse  Prof.  Swing  for  not  discuss- 
ing it? 

Sixthly,  "  That  the  wicked  shall  go  away 
into  everlasting  punishment."  If  Prof.  Swing 
had  used  these  words,  the  prosecutor  would 
appeal  to  James  Freeman  Clarke,  to  show 
that  Unitarians  and  Universal!  sts  use  the 
same  language  in  an  unevangelical  sense.  It 
is  a  remarkable  fact  that  you  can  print  on 
half  of  an  octavo  page  all  the  clear  declara- 
tions in  Scripture  of  the  eternal  punishment 
of  the  wicked.  Now,  Prof.  Swing,  as  a  Pres- 
byterian minister,  and  according  to  his  re- 
cent declarations,  believes  in  the  final  sepa- 
ration of  the  righteous  and  the  wicked,  in 
the  evangelical  sense.  When,  therefore,  he 
speaks  in  his  sermons  of  death,  penalty  and 
hell,  he  must  be  understood  to  use  this  lan- 
guage as  an  evangelical  minister,  in  the  ab- 
sense  of  any  evidence  or  intimation  to  the 
contrary.  It  is  not  so  very  strange,  there- 
fore, that  one  of  the  elders  of  the  Fourth 
Church  should  have  selected  the  same  pas- 
sage to  prove  Prof.  Swing  evangelical  on 
this  subject,  which  the  prosecutor  had  marked 
to  prove  the  contrary.  For  the  one  inter- 
preted this  language  in  the  light  of  his  con- 
viction that  Prof.  Swing  was  honest  in  his 
evangelical  profession,  and  the  other,  in  the 
light  of  his  suspicion  that  the  preacher  had 
been  deceiving  the  people,  and  playing  the 
role  of  an  adroit  hypocrite,  whom  only  a  few 
men  were  capable  of  detecting  and  exposing. 
The  passage  is  as  follows,  and  will  bear  repe- 
tition :  "  Wherever  there  are  hearts  that  can 
see  no  good  uses  in  holiness,  none  in  honesty, 
and  in  charity,  none  in  Jesu3  Christ,  none  in 


the  worship  of  God;  wherever  there  are 
minds  incapable  of  being  led  by  the  intrinsic 
good  of  religion,  there  this  dark  cloud  of 
wrath  is  ready  to  descend  and  to  envelope 
with  its  thunders  the  soul  that  cannot  and 
will  not  be  enveloped  by  love.  The  result  of 
sin,  expressed  in  all  religions  by  the  word 
'hell,'  is  a  perpetual  influence;  liable  to  go 
and  come  as  humanity  advances  or  retreats 
in  the  path  of  intelligence  and  morals, — but 
it  must  be  a  perpetual  fact  in  a  world  of 
beings  capable  of  being  immoral;  a  world  of 
sin  must  be  a  world  of  penalty."  Now,  this 
might  be  said  by  a  Universalist.  But  would 
he  say  it  without  any  intimation  that  there 
was  hope  for  the  final  salvation  of  all?  Prof. 
Swing  .speaks  as  follows,  in  his  sermon  on 
"The  World's  Great  Need:"  "From  Dr. 
Ryder's  letters,  you  will  perceive  that  his 
philosophy  believes  in  a  new  heart,  but  in 
receiving  this  new  heart,  instead  of  increas- 
ing the  labor  and  whole  pressure  in  this  life, 
he  prolongs  the  time.  He  diminishes  the 
power  and  doubles  the  time.  He  allows  us 
future  centuries  upon  the  other  ^shore  in 
which  to  come  to  a  harmony  with  God.  But 
the  orthodox  limit  us  to  a  few  years  here, 
and  hence  pursue  with  more  enthusiasm  the 
work  of  reforming  their  fellow  men.  They 
shorten  the  time  and  double  the  impulse," 
etc.  Who  can  read  this  passage  without 
suspicion,  and  not  feel  that  Prof.  Swing  re- 
gards the  work  of  saving  men  and  the  pro- 
curing of  a  new  heart,  aa  confined  to  this 
world,  leaving  no  hope  of  another  probation 
in  the  future  life  ?  Perhaps  my  mind  has 
been  biased  by  frequently  hearing  Prof. 
Swing  say  in  private  that  he  believed  the 
orthodox  doctrine  on  this  subject ;  but  I 
think  I  should  easily  have  understood  his 
frequent  references  to  the  penalty  of  sin  or 
damnation,  in  his  sermons,  if  I  had  never 
heard  him  say  a  word  on  the  subject  any- 
where else.  It  is  true  he  does  not  deem  it 
wise  to  dwell  much  in  the  pulpit  on  the  dark 
side  of  human  destiny.  But  his  faith  is  well 
ascertained,  and  his  expressions  of  it  are  fre- 
quent enough  to  save  him  from  any  just 
charge  as  to  the  evangelical  character  of  his 
preaching. 

The  sixth  specification  under  charge  first, 
is  based  on  a  misconstruction  of  Profe#»r 
Swing's  meaning.  He  dses  not  intend  to 
say  that  there  is  no  value  in  formulated  the- 
ology, and  that  the  scientific  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  is  worthless  ;  for  he  elsewhere  speaks 


204 


THE  TRIAL  OF  REV.  DAVID  SWING. 


approvingly  of  theology  as  a  science.  But 
he  does  mean  to  say,  that  the  doctrines  of 
Christianity,  as  put  forward  in  Scripture,  are 
those  which  can  be  tried  by  the  human  heart, 
and,  therefore,  he  says :  "  The  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity,  as  formally  stated,  cannot  be  expe- 
rienced." He  believes  this  doctrine,  as  we 
liave  seen ;  but  he  insists  upon  putting  it 
forward  in  its  practical  relations,  and  not  in 
formal  statements.  Is  this  an  ecclesiastical 
offense?  I  pass  over  specifications  seventh, 
eighth  and  ninth,  as  having  been  sufficiently 
considered  under  the  second  charge. 

Specification  tenth  has  been  sufficiently  re- 
futed. It  was  shown  by  the  defense  that 
Professor  Swing  spoke  in  the  sermons  re- 
ferred to,  of  knowledge  from  demonstration, 
and  intended  to  say,  that  conceding,  for  the 
sake  of  argument,  that  the  logical  proofs  are 
equally  balanced  for  and  against  the  existence 
of  God,  there  is  still  another  view  to  be 
taken  ;  and  further,  that  no  one,  by  search- 
ing, can  find  out  God's  nature  and  the  infin- 
ity of  His  attributes.  There  is  no  heresy 
and   no   dangerous   teaching   in  this. 

The  only  remaining  specification  is  the  six- 
teenth which  charges  Professor  Swing  with 
mysticism.  But  it  has  been  shown  that  hein- 
sistsonthe  importance  of  doctrinal  teachingas 
the  most  practical  kind  of  Christianity.  The 
allegation  was  not  pressed  by  the  prosecutor, 
and,  therefore,  I  dismiss  it  without  further 
remark. 

The  other  specifications  which  were 
noticed  under  the  second  charge,  lose  their 
force  under  the  first  head,  if  the  heresy 
of  Professor  Swing  has  not  been  made  out ; 
and  it  does  seem  to  me  that  neither  the  sec- 
ond nor  the  first  charge  has  been  sustained  by 
any  sufficient  proofs.  I  grant  that  Professor 
Swing  is  sometimes,  often,  obscure.  But  fa- 
miliarity with  his  sermons  has  cleared  away 
much  of  the  obscurity  which  formerly  seemed 
to  me  to  hang  over  them.  I  do  not  agree 
with  some  of  Professor  Swing's  ideas  in  re- 
gard to  formulated  theology.  But  his  views 
do  not  seem  to  me  at  all  heretical.  The  de- 
fects of  his  preaching  seem  to  me  to  be 
mainly  negative,  and  to  result  from  the  pecu- 
liarities of  his  mind.  I  think  I  know  that 
he  holds  all  the  doctrines  of  the  evangelical 
system,  and  all  the  essentials  of  the  Calvinis- 
tic  system,  substantially  as  they  were  held 
by  Albert  Barnes.  But  he  puts  forward  cer- 
tain aspects  of  divine  truth,  particularly  the 
place  of  faith  as  a  sanctifying  power,  and 


the  value  of  good  works,  with  a  new  ear- 
nestness. He  has  seen  exaggerations  on  the 
side  of  divine  sovereignty  and  the  work  of 
God  in  human  salvation.  His  danger  now 
is,  that  he  will  too  much  exalt  human  agency, 
and  partially  lose  his  hold  on  the  divine  en- 
ergy as  the  grand  impulse  of  all  true  obe- 
dience and  work  in  man.  His  preaching 
seems  to  me  too  exclusively  human,  just  as 
the  preaching  of  some  other  men  seems  to 
me  a  dangerous  exaggeration  on  the  divine 
side.  But  we  shall  never  see  the  relations 
of  divine  truth  exactly  alike,  and  it  becomes 
us  in  this  respect  to  bear  one  another's  bur- 
dens, and  fulfill  the  law  of  Christ. 

The  interests  of  the  Presbyterian  church 
are  widely  involved  in  the  results  of  this 
trial.  Young  men  for  war ;  but  let  them 
consider  whereunto  these  things  will  grow, 
before  they  carry  the  confiict  further.  Our 
beloved  church  may  easily  be  riven  again, 
and  the  next  time  it  will  be  divided  for  all 
the  future,  or  at  least  until  a  broader  creed 
is  formed  in  explicit  terms  as  a  basis  for 
reunion.  I  do  not  believe  that  our  Confession 
is  incapable  of  improvement  as  a  bond  of 
union.  This  conviction  is  gaining  ground 
far  and  wide.  God  speed  the  day  when  the 
Confession  shall  be  carefully  revised  and  be 
made  a  more  adequate  expression  of  the 
grounds  on  which  we  can  all  meet  around 
the  same  cross  and  mercy  seat. 
•  The  Presbytery  then  adjourned  with  prayer 
until  9:30  A.  M.,  May  19,  1874. 


Tuesday,  May  19th,  1874,  \ 
9:30  A.  M.      / 

The  Presbytery  was  opened  with  prayer 
by  the  Moderator. 

Inter  alia: 

Elder  Leonard  gave  reasons  for  his  absence, 
which  were  sustained. 

The  following  resolution  was  adopted  : 

Resolved,  That  in  case  the  Presbytery  does 
not  complete  its  business  when  the  hour  of 
adjournment  arrives  this  afternoon,  an  extra 
session  be  held  from  7^  o'clock  to  9  o'clock 
P.  M. 

The  calling  of  the  Roll  for  the  expression 
of  opinions  was  continued  as  follows : 

OPINION  OF  REV.   DR.   L.  J.  HALSEY. 

Mb.  Moderator  :  I  can  frankly  say  that 
I  had  not  expected  or  desired  to  speak  on  the 
present  occasion — that  is  in  the  making  up 
of  our  judgment  in   this    case — and    until 


EEV.  DR.  L.  J.  HALSEY'S  OPINION. 


205 


yesterday,  I  had  no  ]Hivposo  to  do  so.  Ac- 
cordingly I  have  made  no  special  prepara- 
tion, hut  must  trust  simply  to  those  points 
that  have  suggested  themselves  to  my  own 
mind  in  the  course  of  the  argument  and  the 
testimony,  and  also  in  the  course  of  the  dis- 
cussion, wliich  we  listened  to  yesterday 
afternoon. 

Certainlj-  there  can  be  no  duty  more  ser- 
ious and  solemn  than  that  of  sitting  in  judg- 
ment on  a  brother  minister.  It  is  a  respon- 
sibility from  which  we  all  might  well  desire 
to  shrink  if  we  could  ;  but  it  is  one  which  we 
cannot  shrink  from.  The  ordination  vows 
of  Gk)d  are  upon  us,  as  well  as  upon  our 
brother.  And  as  Presbyters  we  must  now 
meet  it.  We  must  take  the  responsibility 
which  by  our  system  is  laid  upon  us  of  giv- 
ing our  verdict ;  and  whatever  our  judgment 
may  be  in  this  case,  it  is  well  that  Ave  should 
be  true  to  our  own  convictions  in  giving  our 
reasons  for  that  decision. 

Let  me  say  a  word,  first,  as  to  that  constitu- 
tional question  which  has  been  presented  to 
us,  and  which  meets  us  in  the  very  fore- 
ground. Have  we  any  rule  to  go  by,  have 
we  any  standard  by  which  to  make  up  this 
judgment  ?  Certainly  we  are  not  left  to  the 
Scriptures  alone.  As  a  Church,  we  have  an 
authority  ;  we  have  a  standard,  we  have  a 
rule  by  which  we  must  all  be  governed  in 
this  case.  In  our  Form  of  Government  you 
know  what  the  constitutional  questions  are 
that  are  put  to  every  candidate,  for  ordina- 
tion or  licensure,  which  we  have  all  res- 
ponded to,  and  which,  by  the  very  fact  that 
we  continue  ministers,  we  are  regarded  as 
continually  responding  to:  "Do  you  sincerely 
receive  and  adopt  the  Confession  of  Paith  of 
this  Church  as  containing  the  system  of  doc- 
trine taught  in  the  holy  scriptures  ?  Do  you 
approve  of  the  government  and  discipline  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church  of  these  United 
States  ?  Do  you  promise  subjection  to  your 
brethren  in  the  Lord  ?"  And  in  the  case  of 
the  candidate  for  licensure — which  we  have 
all  answered:  "Do  you  promise  to  study  the 
peace,  the  unity,  and  the  purity  of  the 
church  ?"  Now,  it  is  in  view  of  these  ques- 
tions— these  solemn  constitutional  vows — 
that  we  must  make  up  our  judgment;  and 
we  should  not  forget  them. 

But  the  question  arises.  In  what  sense  do 
we  receive  and  adopt  the  Confession  of 
Faith  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  ?  On 
one  side  it  is  claimed  that  there  is  a  wide 


latitude  of  interpretation  and  of  construc- 
tion. Now,  it  seems  to  me  that  this  whole 
question  has  been  very  clearly  settled  in  the 
past  history  of  the  church,  and  very  clearly 
decided  by  all  the  acts  of  our  recent  great 
Reunion.  I  cannot  agree,  however,  with  the 
positions — at  least  some  of  the  positions — 
which  were  taken  by  Dr.  Patterson  in  the 
statements  you  listened  to  on  yesterday  af- 
ternoon. It  seems  to  me  that  the  very  sense 
in  which  we  are  to  receive  these  standards, 
and  in  which  we  must  continue  to  hold 
them,  is  a  sense  which  has  been  settled 
through  the  whole  past  history  of  the 
church,  both  Old  School  and  New  School — 
during  the  period  of  separation  and  before 
the  separation,  and  now  also  since  the  sepa- 
ration, by  the  whole  reunited  Church.  For 
you  will  observe  that  in  all  the  separations, 
both  sides  have  held  to  these  standards. 
Both  sides  held  these  standards,  and  held 
them  intact  during  the  first  separation  of 
seventeen  or  eighteen  years  before  1758  ; 
and  when  they  came  together,  as  has  been 
well  said,  they  came  together  on  these  same 
standards.  Then,  after  the  separation  in 
1837,  both  parties  continued  to  hold  these 
standards  intact,  and  unaltered,  plain  and 
simple  ;  and  they  came  together  again  re- 
cently, on  the  adoption  of  the  ecclesiastical 
and  doctrinal  basis  of  our  common  stand- 
ards. And  in  what  sense  ?  In  the  sense  of 
their  entire  integrity  ;  in  the  sense  that  they 
contained  the  system  of  doctrine  contained 
in  the  Scriptures,  and  in  no  other  sense. 
Now,  in  any  sense  that  would  impugn  those 
doctrines  or  impugn  that  basis,  clearly  the 
Assembly  would  not  recognize  the  stand- 
ards as  being  sincerely  adopted — that  is, 
adopted  in  the  sense  of  containing  the  sys- 
tem of  doctrine  taught  in  the  Scriptures. 
Suppose  it  should  be  found  that  a  minister 
had  denied  one  of  the  essential  doctrines  of 
the  faith — of  this  Confession  of  Faith.  It 
could  in  no  sense  be  said  that  he  embraced 
the  entire  system  of  doctrine  contained  in 
these  common  standards,  if  one  of  the  very 
doctrines  denied  and  impugned  was  an  es- 
sential doctrine — so  essential  that  to  reject  it 
or  to  deny  it,  would  invalidate  the  system — 
so  essential  that  to  reject  it  would  invalidate 
his  claim  to  be  recognized  as  standing  in 
full  accordance  with  the  standards. 

Now,  let  me  refer  to  some  of  the  deliver- 
ances which  were  made  at  this  point  at  the 
time  of  the  Reunion.     It  has  been  said  that 


206 


THE  TRIAL  OF  REV.  DAVID  SWING. 


the  adoption  of  these  standards  admits  of  a 
very  wide  range  of  interpretation,  and  al- 
lows a  very  wide  latitude.  Individual  liber- 
ty is  not  to  be  destroyed.  "Well,  it  is  true 
that,  the  Presbyterian  Church  has  already 
recognized  individual  liberty  as  one  of  her 
birthrights,  and  has  always  contended  for 
the  right  of  private  judgment.  But  then, 
at  the  same  time,  it  is  equally  true  that  that 
individual  liberty,  and  that  right  of  private 
judgment,  have  been  held  to  be  a  liberty 
and  a  right  exercised  within  the  doctTines  of 
the  standards,  and  not  without  those  doctrines. 
It  is  not  a  right  to  reject  the  doctrines  after 
one  has  subscribed  to  them,  but  it  is  a  right 
— it  is  a  liberty — which  must  be  held  as  at 
the  same  time  holding  to  the  standards,  and 
not  rejecting  them.  That  this  is  the  case  let 
me  refer  to  some  passages  which  were  read 
by  Mr.  Noyes  at  the  close  of  his  argument, 
as  giving  us  the  sentiments  of  Dr.  Musgrave 
and  other  representative  men  at  the  time  of 
the  great  Reunion.  Dr.  Musgrave  was  one 
of  the  representative  men  on  that  occasion, 
and  we  are  very  willing  to  abide  by  his  lan- 
guage as  uttered  on  the  occasion,  if  you  will 
take  the  whole  of  the  language.  You  will 
find  it  given  on  page  542,  of  the  Reunion 
Volume.  I  had  the  book  in  my  hand  and 
followed  Mr.  Noyes  as  he  read  from  it  the 
declaration  made  by  Dr.  Musgrave  when  he 
said  we  were  not  to  be  tied  down  to  the  ips- 
sisima  verba  of  the  standards,  that  there 
was  a  liberty  which  was  to  be  allowed ; 
and  that  a  man  was  not  to  be  held  as  an 
offender  for  a  word.  I  will  not  repeat  that 
reading,  but  I  observed  that  Mr.  Noyes,  in 
reading  a  passage  on  the  279th  page,  from 
the  report  of  Dr.  Adams  and  Dr.  Beatty, 
chairmen  of  the  committees  of  the  Old  and 
New  Schools,  in  the  Assemblies  of  1868,  al- 
so representative  men,  did  not  complete  the 
sentence  ;  he  stopped  at  the  semicolon.  Let 
me  read  the  whole  closing  passage  : 

"  They  have  asserted  as  being  essential  to 
all  true  unity,  the  necessity  of  adopting  the 
same  Confession  and  the  same  system,  with 
the  recognition  of  liberty  on  either  hand  for 
such  differences  as  do  not  itnpair  the  integ- 
rity of  the  system  itself,"  That  far  Mr. 
Noyes  read.  Then  follows:  "  Which  is  all 
the  liberty  that  any  branch  of  the  great  Calvin- 
istic  family  of  churches  has  ever  claimed  or 
desired.^' 

Just  that  much  liberty,  and  no  more  liberty 
has  been  claimed  and  desired.     And  what  is 


that  liberty  ?  It  is  liberty  of  differences,  but 
differences  as  interpreted  in  the  preceding 
clause,  which  do  not  impair  the  integrity  of 
the  system  itself.  ■  If  the  differences  impair 
the  integrity  of  the  system  itself ;  if  the  lati- 
tude is  such  that  it  comes  in  contact  with 
the  substance  of  the  system  itself,  then  that 
is  a  liberty  which  is  not  allowed  ;  that  is  a 
liberty  which  was  never  claimed  by  either 
branch  of  the  church ;  for  that  is  a  liberty 
which  would  be  fatal  to  the  system  ;  that  is  a 
liberty  which  would  at  once  establish  the 
broad  church, — establish  it,  if  you  please,  on 
the  basis  of  evangelical  views  ;  but  it  would 
be  no  longer  distinctly  a  Presbyterian 
Church  ;  and  that  is  not  a  liberty  which  has 
ever  been  allowed,  as  I  understand  it,  either 
in  the  Old  School  or  the  New  School  during 
the  separation,  or  can  be  allowed  now.  Cer- 
tainly if  it  was  not  allowed  during  the  separ- 
ation, it  cannot  be  allowed  now,  seeing  we 
have  come  together  with  this  full  under- 
standing that  the  only  liberty  we  claim  under 
the  Reunion  is  a  liberty  that  shall  not  impair 
the  integrity  of  the  standards.  We  allow 
men  to  differ ;  we  allow  them  to  differ  on 
certain  points — minor  points  it  may  be,  or 
points  comparatively  unimportant — but  not 
on  those  essential  points  that  would  strike  at 
the  very  vitals  of  the  system.  No  such 
liberty  as  that  is  allowed. 

Then  turn  to  another  passage  from  Dr. 
Musgrave's  speech  of  1869.  His  whole  ad- 
dress is  given,  page  541  of  this  Memorial  vol- 
ume. Mr.  Noyes  read  the  part  of  it  where 
he  speaks  of  the  ijisissima  verba,  and  of  not 
being  made  "offenders  for  a  word."  On  page 
542  let  me  read  you  what  Dr.  Musgrave  said: 
"  We  have  said  that  we  mean  to  maintain 
the  system  of  doctrines  taught  in  those  stand- 
ards, because  we  believe  them  to  be  according 
to  God's  word,  with  constancy  and  fidelity. 
In  other  words  we  meant  and  wanted  it  to 
be  understood  that  we  never  intended  to  al- 
low brethren  to  impair  the  integrity  of  that 
system.  If  any  such  errors  are  propagated, 
those  who  are  engaged  in  it  must  expect  to 
be  disciplined.  We  will  maintain,  God  help- 
ing us,  the  purity  of  doctrines  taught  in  our 
blessed  Confession.  That  is  distinctly  under- 
stood, and  I  rejoice  that  in  the  preamble  to 
one  of  the  papers,  we  distinctly  announced 
that  we  recognized  each  other  as  sound  and 
orthodox  bodies,  thus  advertising  to  all  the 
world  that  the  reason  why  these  two  great 
branches  of  the  Church  are  to  be  united  is 


KEY.  DR.  L.  J.  HALSEY'S  OPINION. 


207 


because  we  believe  each  other  to  be  orthodox 
and  sound  in  the  faith.  So  that  it  must  be 
phiin  enough  that  a  united  Church  founded 
upon  our  Confession,  eacli  branch  recognizing 
the  other  as  sound  and  orthodox,  will  never 
tolerate  heresy.  Why  sir,  I  have  not  changed 
my  theological  views  and  my  conscientious 
convictions  of  duty  in  the  least  degree  in  re- 
gard to  that,  and  though  I  may  not  livelong, 
I  will  endeavor  as  in  the  past,  by  God's  grace, 
to  defend  and  maintain  the  purity  of  our 
doctrines.  That  is  understood — that  we  re- 
ceive the  Confession  sincerely,  and  that  we 
mean  to  maintain  and  defend  it." 

Then  one  more  sentence  on  the  following 
page.  In  telling  of  the  interview  which,  as 
one  of  the  committee,  he  had  with  the  New 
School  brethren,  he  said : 

"Now,  sir,  we  have  said  to  them  that  we 
understand  that  there  is  to  be  allowed  in  this 
united  Church  a  reasonable  degree  of  liberty; 
that  men  are  not  to  be  made  offenders  for  a 
word;  that  we  will  not  encourage  persecu- 
tion, or  needless  prosecution,  if  you  prefer 
it;  but  will  allow  just  such  liberty  in  the 
united  Church  as  has  been  freely  allowed  in 
the  Old  School  branch  of  the  Church.  Will 
that  satisfy  them?  Now,  sir,  we  understand 
each  other.  We  are  both  sound  orthodox 
bodies,  pledged  to  that  old  Confession,  under- 
standing each  other  that  we  mean  to  maintain 
it  in  its  integrity;  and  on  the  other  hand, 
that  we  will  allow  all  reasonable  diiferences 
of  opinion ;  that  is  to  say,  such  differences  as 
are  consistent  with  maintaining  the  integrity 
of  the  system.  No  opinion  is  to  be  tolerated 
that  would  be  subversive  of  our  system  of 
doctrine.  Thus  we  arrived  at  a  harmonious 
conclusion,  and,  so  far  as  I  could  judge, 
every  man  in  that  Joint  Committee  agreed 
that  this  was  fair  and  just,  and  I  think  it  is. 
What  more  can  we  ask  than  that  this  basis 
should  be  our  common  standards,  with  this 
understanding  between  the  parties,  that  it  is 
not  to  be  received  insincerely,  with  reserve; 
that  there  is  to  be  no  toleration  of  material 
doctrinal  dfferences,  while  a  reasonable  lib- 
erty will  be  allowed." 

Well,  if  we  are  to  be  governed  in  any  way 
by  Dr.  Musgrave's  judgment,  we  see  plainly 
what  his  judgment  is,  and  it  is  in  justice  to 
him  that  I  should  read  these  passages,  seeing 
that  the  matter  has  been  presented  here  in 
such  away  that  it  only  gives  a  part  of  his  view. 
He  does  allow  liberty  of  interpretation.  He 
■will  not  hold  a  man  an  offender  for  a  word. 


We  are  not  sticklers  for  the  ipsissima  verba 
of  the  Confession ;  but  then  we  must  do 
nothing  that  will  impair  its  integrity.  Wo 
must  hold  the  syston,  and  our  brethren  of 
the  New  School  as  well  as  of  the  Old  School 
agree  as  holding  the  system  ;  for  the  declara- 
tion, when  we  came  together  in  1869,  made 
by  both  bodies,  was  in  the  very  same  words : 
"that  this  union  shall  be  effected  on  the 
ecclesiastical  and  doctrinal  basis  of  our  com- 
mon standards  ;  that  the  Confession  of  Faith 
shall  continue  to  be  sincerely  received  and 
adopted,  as  containing  the  system  of  doctrine 
tauL^ht  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  this  basis 
of  reunion  is  hereby  declared  to  be  of  binding 
force."  Well,  that  is  the  law  under  which 
we  stand,  and  that  is  the  rule  by  which  we 
are  to  be  governed.  Now,  in  order  to  con- 
firm this  view,  let  me  notice  one  or  two 
other  opinions  which  have  not  thus  far  been 
presented.  One  is  that  of  Dr.  Stearns,  who 
was  also  a  representative  man,  Moderator  of 
the  New  School  Assembly  of  1868.  I  will 
read  from  page  336  of  this  Reunion  volume. 
Let  us  see  if  he  does  not  agree  precisely,  in 
the  matter  now  before  you,  with  Dr.  Mus- 
grave,  so  that  we  shall  find  representative 
men,  on  both  sides,  agreeing  as  to  this  point. 

"  But  it  is  said  we  are  very  jealous  about 
the  doctrines.  Well,  are  we  not  all  jealous 
about  them?  If  not,  why  have  we  kept  the 
old  Confession  of  Faith  ?  Does  not  that  state 
them  distinctly  ?  Is  there  a  man  among  us 
who  would  exchange  it  for  another  system, 
or  allow  its  proper  integrity  as  a  system  of 
doctrine  to  be  impaired?  But  it  is  said  on 
the  other  hand  we  want  liberty  both  of 
thought  and  expression.  What  liberty? 
Liberty  to  subscribe  one  thing  and  believe 
another  ?  Liberty  to  think  and  speak  con- 
trary to  the  Holy  Scriptures  ?  None  of  us 
would  say  that  Presbyterianism  has  made  no 
provision  for  an  ever  fresh  resort  to  that 
fountain  of  truth.  It  does  not  require  us  to 
receive  the  Confession  of  Faith  as  infallible. 
It  does  not  tie  us  up  to  those  precise  words 
and  forms  of  expression.  It  does  not  require 
us  to  subscribe  to  every  proposition  contained 
in  it,  but  only  to  receive  it  as  containing  the 
system  of  doctrines  taught  in  the  Scriptures." 

We  agree  fully  with  that  deliverance,  that 
we  are  not  to  be  tied  up  to  the  ipsissima  ver- 
ba, but  we  are  to  hold  the  doctrines,  and  we 
cannot  deny  any  doctrine  that  shall  impair 
the  integrity  of  the  system — that  shall  in  any 
way  invalidate  or  destroy  the  system. 


208 


THE  TEIAL  OF  EEV.  DAVID  SWING. 


Then  take  another  passage  from  Dr.  Wm. 
Adams,  page  304  of  this  volume — another  re- 
presentative man.  Bear  in  mind  the  precise 
point  I  am  making,  that  this  liberty  which 
is  claimed  is  not  a  liberty  to  ivfringe  or  im- 
pair the  StandaTds ;  that  is  the  point,  and  the 
precise  point. 

"  As  we  have  been  taught  by  our  common 
system  of  theology,  that  God  foreordains 
whatsoever  comes  to  pass,  making  even  the 
wrath  of  man  to  praise  Him,  we  may  sup- 
pose that  each  of  these  distinct  bodies  may 
have  had  its  mission,  and  so  is  now  prepared 
to  benefit  the  other  in  new  combination  ; 
as  streams  impregnated  with  the  qualities  of 
the  different  soils  through  which  they  run, 
flow  together  and  purify  each  other  by  the 
gentle  effervescence  of  contrary  qualities.  I 
suppose  you  will  consider  it  no  affront  if  you 
are  regarded  as  the  special  conservators  of 
orthodoxy.  Adopting  the  same  Confession 
of  Faith  with  yourselves,  in  all  honesty,  we 
will  not  shrink  from  being  considered  as  the 
special  advocates  and  representatives  of  lib- 
erty. Circumstances  have  created  these  dis- 
tinctions. You  will  not  think  it  strange, 
while  you  hold  fast  to  your  orthodoxy,  that 
we  should  magnify  and  assert  our  liberty. 
"We  have  found  it  necessary  to  emphasize  the 
fact,  that  within  the  bounds  of  our  common 
system,  of  doctrine  there  is  room  for  liberty. 
As  there  always  has  been,  so  there  always 
will  be,  difference  of  opinion  in  unessential 
particulars,  among  those  who  are  agreed 
heartily  in  the  great  essentials  of  the  same 
historic  system.'^ 

Now,  sir,  let  me  advert  for  a  moment  to  a 
point  which  was  also  presented  by  Dr.  Patter- 
son in  arguing  this  constitutional  question  on 
yesterday  afternoon,  when  he  referred  to  the 
answer  to  the  protest  made  in  the  Old  School 
General  Assembly  of  1868,  which  answer 
was  written  by  Dr.  Shedd.  Dr.  Shedd  was 
a  prominent  man  in  that  Assembly,  and  he 
had  the  advantage  of  being  regarded  by  both 
those  who  were  in  favor  of  Reunion  and  those 
who  were  against  it,  as  being  a  representative 
man,  because  while  he  held  connection  with 
the  Old  School  Church,  he  was  also  a  leading 
Professor  in  the  Union  Theological  Semi- 
nary, the  leading  seminary  of  the  New 
School,  and  he  had  much  to  do  in  shaping 
the  final  action  of  that  body  ;  and  so  when  it 
came  to  the  protest,  he  was  appointed  to 
answer  it.  The  protest  was  presented  against 
the  Eeunion  on  the  part  of  those  who  had  op- 


posed it,  in  the  fear  that  the  New  School 
was  not  ready  for  the  Reunion — that  is,  was 
not  fully  sound  on  the  standards,  and  so  at 
the  last  they  put  in  their  declaration  to  that 
effect  in  the  form  of  a  protest.  Dr.  Shedd 
was  on  the  committee  to  answer  the  protest. 
On  page  285  of  this  Reunion  Volume  you 
have  that  document.  I  would  arlso  remark 
that  the  document  is  published  in  the  New 
Digest ;  I  do  not  recollect  the  page  ;  it  is  one 
of  the  most  important  papers  during  the  Re- 
union movement.  This  paper  was  approved 
and  adopted  by  the  Assembly  as  indorsing 
the  orthodoxy  of  the  New  School  branch, 
and  satisfied  some  of  the  protestors  that  it 
was  safe  now  to  reunite.  Up  to  that  time  I 
had  myself  opposed  the  Eeunion,  and  on  the 
ground  just  stated.  Up  to  that  hour  I  had 
had  my  doubts,  but  when  that  protest  was 
made,  and  Dr.  Shedd  brought  in  his  answer, 
and  that  answer  was  adopted  by  the  Old 
School  Assembly  and  placed  on  record,  I  for 
one  felt  that  we  were  safely  and  satisfactorily 
answered,  and  from  that  day  forward  I  never 
uttered  a  word  in  opposition  to  the  Reunion 
movement.  I  thought  then  that  it  was  right 
and  safe  to  go  forward.  It  so  happened  that 
I  was  in  daily  association  with  Dr.  Shedd — 
staying  at  the  same  house  during  all  the 
time,  hearing  all  his  speeches ;  and  I  felt 
that  it  was  safe  to  reunite,  when  our  Assem- 
bly, under  the  guidance  of  one  so  competent 
to  understand  both  sides,  had  placed  on 
record  the  grounds  on  which  the  New  School 
body  was  recognized  as  a  sound  orthodox 
Church.  I  will  not  stop  to  read  this  paper — 
it  would  he  too  long — but  I  will  simply  indi- 
cate some  of  the  heads. 

The  first  point  is  this  : 

"  Such  a  position  " — that  is  to  say,  the  po- 
sition taken  by  the  protestors — "  if  taken  by 
the  New  School  Church,  or  by  any  church 
whatsoever,  would  simply  be  self-stultifying 
and  absurd.  That  a  great  religious  denomi- 
nation, which,  from  the  beginning  of  its  or- 
ganization in  1837,  down  to  the  present  time, 
has  held  up  the  Westminster  Confession  as 
its  symbol,  and  compelled  every  one  of  its  min- 
isters and  elders  to  subscribe  to  that  symbol, 
and  has  received  its  membership  into  church 
communion  upon  professing  faith  in  the  doc- 
trines of  that  symbol ;  that  an  ecclesiastical 
body  which  has  thus  stood  before  the  other 
churches  of  this  and  other  lands  as  a  Calvin- 
istic  body,  and  has  been  reckoned  and  recog- 
nized as  such,   should  at  the  same  time  be 


KEY.  DE.  L.  J.  HALSEY'S  OPINION. 


209 


jealous  in  behalf  of  the  distinguishing  doc- 
trines of  Pelagianism  and  Anninianisin,  and 
insist  that  these  latter  are  consistent  with  the 
former,  and  are  to  be  tolerated  in  a  Calvin- 
istic  body,  is  too  much  for  human  belief. 
The  Assembly  is  fully  satisfied  that  any  in- 
stances of  laxity  of  doctrine  among  the  New 
School  which  have  been  exhibited  are  excep- 
tional cases,  and  that  the  great  body  of  the 
other  Church  sincerely  and  firmly  stand  upon 
the  basis  of  our  common  standards.  That 
the  allegation  of  this  protest  is  unfounded,  is 
proven  by  the  fact  that  the  New  School 
Church  have  adopted,  by  a  unanimous  vote, 
the  Basis  of  Doctrine  presented  by  the  Joint 
Committee.  Whatever  may  be  the  prefer- 
ences and  opinions  of  individuals  respecting 
particular  clauses  in  the  first  article  in  this 
basis,  this  General  Assembly  holds  and  affirms 
that  it  not  only  commits  but  binds  any  eccle- 
siastical body  that  should  receive  it  to  pure 
and  genuine  Calvinism.  And  it  must  be 
distinctly  observed  that  if  any  doctrines  had 
been  hitherto  allowed  by  the  New  School 
body  which  impair  the  integrity  of  the  Cal- 
vinisiic  system,  they  are  not  to  be  allowed  in 
the  united  (Jhurch  under  the  terms  of  union. 
Such  doctrines  are  condemned,  and  any  one 
who  may  teach  them  will  be  subject  to  disci- 
pline. ' ' 

"Well,  I  need  not  read  the  whole.  One 
other  point  may  be  here  noticed  : 

"  These  very  errors,  charged  by  the  signers 
of  the  protest  as  allowed  by  the  New  School 
Presbyterians,  have  already  been  distinctly 
repudiated  by  them  ;"  and  then  Dr.  Shedd 
goes  on  to  remark  that  the  famous  Auburn 
Convention,  of  which  you  heard  yesterday, 
had  distinctly  rejected  the  latitudinarian  and 
heretical  tenets  mentioned  in  this  protest, 
and  adopted  the  contrary  true  doctrines,  em- 
bracing all  the  fundamentals  of  the  Calvin- 
istic  creed,  and  that  by  this  declaration  the 
New  School  body  had  placed  itself  fully  on 
the  standards,  and  that  its  orthodoxy  was  as 
unimpeded  astheorthodoxy  of  the  Old  School. 

Now  the  errors  specified  and  abjured  in 
that  famous  declaration  are  not  points  which 
are  involved  in  the  controversy  here.  Let 
me  call  your  attention  to  the  points  which 
are  involved,  for  they  are  on  record  here  in 
Dr.  Shedd's  answer  to  the  protest — at  least 
enough  of  them  to  indicate  their  character  : 

"1.  There  is  no  moral  character  in  man 
prior  to  moral  action,  and  therefore  man  was 
not  created  holy. 


2.  There  was  no  covenant  made  with  Adam; 
his  posterity  did  not  fall  with  him,  and  every 
man  stands  or  falls  for  himself. 

3.  Original  sin  is  not  truly  and  properly 
sin,  bringing  condemnation,  but  only  an  in- 
nocent tejulency  leading  to  actual  transgres- 
sion. 

4.  Inability  of  anj'  and  every  kind  is  in- 
consistent with  moral  obligation. 

5.  llegeneration  is  the  sinner's  own  act, 
and  consists  in  the  change  of  his  governing 
purpose. 

6.  God  cannot  control  the  acts  of  free 
agents,  and  therefore  cannot  prevent  sin  in  a 
moral  system. 

7.  Election  is  founded  upon  God's  fore- 
knowledge that  the  sinner  will  repent  and 
believe. 

8.  The  sufferings  of  Christ  are  not  penal, 
and  do  not  satisfy  retributive  justice. 

9.  Justification  is  pardon  merely,  and  doen 
not  include  the  restoration  to  favor  and  ac- 
ceptance as  righteous." 

Well,  you  see  at  once  that  these  are  not 
the  points  involved  in  the  present  contro- 
versy. They  involve  intricate  and  difficult 
questions  about  ability  and  inability,  the 
extent  of  Divine  agency,  the  nature  of  re- 
generation, the  decree  of  election,  as  to 
whether  it  was  outside  of  man's  character 
and  obedience,  the  theory  of  the  atonement, 
as  to  whether  it  was  limited  or  unlimited, 
the  influence  of  Adam's  fall  upon  his  pos- 
terity and  kindred  points.  But  now  the 
question  goes  deeper;  it  is  whether  we  have 
any  original  sin,  it  is  whether  we  have  any 
atonement,  it  is  whether  we  have  any  elec- 
tion. It  is  not  some  difference  of  opinion 
about  the  explanation  of  the  atonement,  or 
the  explanation  of  election,  or  the  explana- 
tion of  the  decrees,  but  the  errors  charged  in 
this  indictment  go  to  the  whole  length  of 
leaving  us  uncertain  whether  the  doctrines 
of  grace  are  held  in  any  sense  compatible 
with  the  creed  held  by  Calvinistic  Pres- 
byterians. 

I  have  endeavored,  Mr.  Moderator,  and 
brethren,  to  read  these  sermons  with  an  un- 
biased judgment,  and  I  think  I  have  read 
those  that  have  come  within  my  reach  dur- 
ing the  days  and  weeks  of  this  trial,  with  as 
much  careful  deliberation  and  candor  as  I 
ever  read  anything  ;  and  I  am  compelled  to 
say  that  I  have  read  them  with  an  increas- 
ing conviction  that  they  are  not  in  accord- 
ance with  the  system  of  doctrine  contained 


210 


THE  TEIAL  OF  KEY.  DAVID  SWING. 


in  the  Confession  of  Faith — on  at  least  three 
of  the  very  points  which  I  hold  to  be  es- 
sential to  that  sj^stem.  One  is  the  supreme 
divinity  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Another 
is  the  decrees  of  God,  his  electing  or  pre- 
destinating decree,  involving  the  whole  doc- 
trine of  the  Divine  Sovereignty  and  the  Divine 
agency.  And  the  third,  is  the  doctrine  of 
justification  by  Faith  alone ;  that  is  to  say. 
Justification  on  the  ground  of  Christ's  im- 
puted righteousness,  as  distinguished  from 
Justification  by  works.  You  see  that  the 
doctrines  thus  involved  are  not  the  doctrines 
that  were  discussed  between  the  Old  and  the 
New  School  in  1837  and  1838;  and  those 
doctrines  are  scarcely  touched  by  any  of  the 
sixteen  points  contained  in  the  Auburn  De- 
claration, or  any  of  the  nine  points  against 
which  this  protest  in  1868  was  made,  and 
answered  by  the  Assembly.  These  errors 
alleged  against  Prof.  Swing  go  deeper.  Many 
of  his  teachings  not  only  impair  the  doctrinal 
system  of  our  standards,  but  in  my  judgment 
they  are  in  direct  conflict  with  it.  I  am  com- 
pelled to  feel  that  they  are  not  only  seriously 
defecti  vebut  that  they  are  dangerously  wrong ; 
that  they  are  not  the  system,  and  they  can- 
not, by  any  fair  interpretation,  be  reconciled 
with  the  Calvinistic  system.  Now,  it  is  one 
thing  to  reconcile  them  with  the  views  of 
the  Evangelical  Alliance — it  is  one  thing  to 
reconcile  them  with  what  we  may  call  Evan- 
gelical Christendom — and  another  thing  to 
reconcile  them  with  the  standards  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church.  We  are  to  be  gov- 
erned by  our  own  system.  We  must  be  true 
to  our  own  system,  because  we  hold  that 
sj'stem  as  the  system  of  doctrines  contained 
in  the  Scriptures ;  and  because  they  are  the 
doctrines  contained  in  the  Scriptures,  we  hold 
them,  and  must  hold  them  until  we  alter 
them  or  repudiate  them.  And  this  leads  me 
to  remark  upon  certain  positions  that  were 
stated  yesterday  in  reference  to  this  change 
of  the  system.  Our  system  provides  for  its 
own  amendment — provides  for  its  being 
changed.  Whenever  the  Church  shall  dis- 
cover that  any  of  the  doctrines  contained  in 
its  Confession  of  Faith  are  not  the  doctrines 
of  the  Scriptures,  then  it  is  competent  for 
her,  in  the  exercise  of  her  dogmatic  power, 
to  call  a  convention,  to  change  those  stand- 
ards in  accordance  with  the  Scripture.  But 
here  is  the  point,  Mr.  Moderator:  Until 
that  is  done  we  are  under  these  standards 
and  we  are  under  no  other  standards.    Until 


that  is  done  —  constitutionally  done,  and 
therefore  rightfully  done — done  in  accord- 
ance with  the  provisions  of  the  system,  and 
done  so  as  to  make  the  system  in  accordance 
with  the  Bible — until  that  is  done,  I  say, 
this  system  is  our  law  and  we  cannot  repu- 
diate the  law.  We  cannot,  by  any  indi- 
vidual action  of  our  own,  nullify  that  law; 
for  we  have  sworn  to  adopt  it.  By  our  ordi- 
nation vows  we  stand  before  the  world  as 
adopting  it,  and  the  whole  Presbyterian 
Church  stands  before  the  world  as  adopting 
it.  It  will  not  do  to  say,  then,  that  we  have 
so  far  departed  from  those  doctrines  as  to 
make  an  amendment  necessary — so  far  as 
to  make  a  reformation  necessary.  Until  a 
movement  is  made  for  a  re-adjustment  of 
the  doctrines  —  until  that  change  in  the 
standards  is  effected  —  we,  as  Presbyterians, 
are  bound  to  stand  by  the  system  and  hold 
the  system  in  its  integrity,  and  there  is  no 
possibility  of  our  taking  any  other  position, 
unless  we  would  take  the  position  of  direct 
hostility  to  the  standards.  This  would  be  a 
position  of  direct  disobedience  and  hostility 
to  the  church  of  which  we  are  members. 
Well,  it  is  a  very  serious  thing  when  in  an 
officer  of  the  church,  elder  or  minister,  it 
comes  to  that.  It  is  a  very  serious  thing 
when  the  liberty  is  claimed  of  impugning 
that  system  and  of  departing  from  that  sys- 
tem in  our  preaching.  I  know  nothing  more 
feariul  than  to  take  the  position  that  the  in- 
dividual, elder  or  preacher,  standing  under 
these  solemn  vows,  may  do  this  while  adopt- 
ing before  the  world  that  system  as  his — 
impugning  it,  or  undermining  or  denying  it, 
and  saying  in  his  public  utterances,  and  say- 
ing even  on  the  floor  of  this  Presbytery  that 
the  church  has  departed  from  these  standai'ds. 
Hence,  I  think  there  can  be  no  ground  for 
the  distinction  between  the  church  actual 
and  the  church  historic.  The  Presbyterian 
Church  as  it  is  to-day  is  Presbyterianism  as 
it  is  formulated  in  the  standards.  It  is  im- 
possible for  us  to  take  such  a  position  as 
that ;  for  if  we  do,  where  do  we  stand  ? 
Now,  look  at  it  for  a  moment.  What,  in 
that  case,  is  your  rule  of  faith  ?  What  is 
your  umpire,  your  standard  of  judgment, 
provided  you  assume  the  position  that  you 
are  no  longer  governed  by  the  formulated 
standards,  and  are  governed  by  the  actual 
church  ?  How  are  you  to  determine  what 
actual  Presbyterianism  is  ?  What  are  you 
to  do  ?     Suppose  a  candidate  for  licensure  or 


EEV.  DK.  L.  J.  HASLEY'S  OPINION. 


211 


ordination  comes  before  you  from  one  of  our 
theological  schools,  and  tells  you,  "I  stand 
on  the  basis  of  actual  Presbyterianism  ;  I 
cannot  subscribe  to  your  historical  stand- 
ards ;  I  have  departed  from  those  historical 
stanriiU'ds  ;  I  cannot  subscribe  to  that  Con- 
fession ;  I  cannot  respond  in  the  affirmative 
to  these  inquiries."  AVhat  can  you  do? 
Can  you  lay  your  hands  upon  him  ?  Is 
there  a  Presbytery  in  this  whole  land  that 
would  license  a  man,  or  that  would  ordain  a 
man,  who  should  make  before  the  Presby- 
tery such  a  plea  as  that — planting  himself  on 
a  theology  which  is  actual  and  a  church 
which  is  actual,  as  distinguished  from  the 
historic  church  of  our  fathers — as  distin- 
guished from  the  church  represented  in  this 
Calvinistic  system.  It  is  perfectly  manifest 
that  we  could  not  stand  for  an  hour  on  such 
a  basis  as  that.  But  the  moment  you  say 
we  can,  then  your  appeal  is  to  public  opinion 
arxd  not  to  the  law  and  testimony  of  God — 
to  uncertain  and  fickle  voices  of  popular 
feeling,  and  not  to  our  ancient  symbols ; 
and  you  are  governed  in  your  judgment  by 
the  outside  world  rather  than  by  the  Church 
of  Christ.  You  are  governed  by  the  votes 
— by  the  voice  of  an  existing  church — the 
people  of  an  existing  time — rather  than  by 
those  glorious  standards  that  have  come 
down  to  us  from  the  Westminster  Assembly, 
and  have  been  adopted  and  held  and  honor- 
ed now  for  230  years  by  all  the  Presbyteri- 
ans in  the  world. 

It  has  seemed  to  me  that  the  very  grava- 
men of  Professor  Swing's  error  or  offense,  m 
this  case  is,  his  own  war  upon  dogmas,  as  he 
calls  thetn;  that  is  to  say,  upon  doctrines; 
that  is  to  say  again,  upon  theology  ;  that  is 
to  say  still  further,  upon  the  formulated 
standards  of  the  church.  I  have  read  these 
sermons  from  time  to  time  during  the  past 
year;  I  have  heard  his  preaching,  and  I 
have  always  heard  it  with  great  pain — with 
inexpressible  pain — on  that  very  point — and 
it  has  seemed  to  me  that  he,  in  the  exercise  of 
philanthropy,  and  charity,  and  good  will, 
and  all  that  humanitarianism  which  charac- 
terizes the  age,  and  which  is  so  exemplified 
in  himself,  was  drifting  more  and  more  into 
a  position  of  hostility  to  the  faith  of  the 
fathers — of  hostility  to  the  standards  of  the 
church.  The  very  title  which  he  gives  to 
that  sermon — Christianity  and  Dogma — is  an 
indication  of  this  tendency.  By  dogma 
Professor  Swing  means  doctrine ;  and  that 


term  dogma  is  a  favorite  expression  in  many 
of  the  sermons.  Dogma  is  taken  from  the 
old  Greek  and  Latin,  and  is  a  current  word 
in  the  languages  of  Europe  as  expressive  of 
doctrine,  and  .books  are  published  there  un- 
der the  head  of  "  Dogma  ''  or  doctrine,  with- 
out ever  making  it  a  term  of  reproach.  Un- 
fortunately, it  is  a  word  which,  in  our 
country,  carries  with  it  a  certain  degree  of 
opprobrium,  and  that  is  one  reason  why  I 
have  felt  grieved  to  see  this  and  other  terms 
used  in  a  manner,  which,  as  applied  to  our 
church  and  to  our  theology,  and  to  our  stan- 
dards, could  not  fail,  in  the  public  estimation, 
to  carry  a  certain  degree  of  opprobrium. 
But  it  is  perfectly  plain,  that  by  the  term 
"dogma,"  and  "  dogmas,"  Professor  Swing 
means  the  doctrines  of  the  church  as  formu- 
lated in  the  standards.  In  one  of  the  ser- 
mons in  evidence,  he  says  expressly,  these 
doctrines  are  dying  around  our  firesides. 
Now,  what  doctrines?  The  doctrines  of  our 
standards — the  doctrines  of  the  catechism  ; 
and  it  is  on  the  ground  of  teaching  like  this, 
that  many  persons  in  this  city  have  come  to 
believe  that  the  Confession  of  Faith  is  an  ob- 
solete system,  and  it  has  gone  out  from  the 
secular  press  and  been  spread  all  over  the 
country  that  it  is  a  rotten  platform.  It  has 
been  pronounced  such  by  the  papers — that  it 
is  a  dead-letter,  that  it  is  a  rotten  platform, 
that  these  dogmas  or  doctrines,  are  dying 
around  our  firesides;  and  I  have  been  pained 
to  feel  that  it  is  preaching  of  this  kind  that 
has  been  helping  to  kill  them.  But,  Mr. 
Moderator,  I  feel  that  they  have  a  deathless 
life.  They  cannot  die.  They  are  as  inde- 
structible as  the  Bible.  I  hold  these  doc- 
trines, and  I  hold  them  with  all  the  greater 
tenacity,  because  our  fathers  held  them. 
They  held  them  ;  they  lived  them,  and  in 
the  belief  of  them  they  died  and  went  to 
heaven;  and  we  are  safe  when  we  follow  in 
their  steps.  They  are  not  going  to  die. 
They  may  be  brought  into  disrepute  in  our 
city ;  they  may  have  arrayed  against  them 
all  the  hostility  of  a  skeptical  and  unbeliev- 
ing age,  they  may  be  pronounced  obsolete 
and  pronounced  to  be  dead-letters  and  dying 
doctrines;  but  they  are  as  deathless  as  the 
Word  of  God  ;  they  are  the  very  doctrines 
that  are  taught  in  the  Word  of  God. 

Now,  just  at  this  point,  let  me  say  that 
Prof.  Swing  has  not  been  satisfied  simply  to 
depart  from  these  doctrines  and  let  them 
alone.     It  is  one  thing  to  do  tnat ;    and  I 


2:12 


THE  TKIAL  OF  KEY.  DAVID  SWING. 


know  that  you  may  look  through  the  Church 
and  find  many  persons  who  have,  in  some 
measure,  departed  from  the  i2}sissima  verba 
of  the  standards,  and  they  hold  these  SM6JM(iice. 
They  hold  them  until  they  shall  be  modified, 
if  indeed  they  ever  shall  be,  but  they  do  not 
hold  them  up  to  derision,  they  do  not  set 
themselves  in  hostile  array  against  them. 
They  are  content  to  hold  them,  but  not  to 
revile  them.  Sad  to  say,  I  think  our  brother 
has  not  been  content  with  this  silence.  I 
think  he  has  gone  further  than  simply  to 
withhold  his  assent  from  them.  I  think  he 
has,  in  many  cases,  held  them  up  in  such  a 
way  as  to  create  odium — as  to  cast  opprobrium 
on  those  that  do  hold  them,  and  on  the 
Church  that  is  bound  to  maintain  them.  He 
has  misrepresented  them,  and,  I  think,  has 
caricatured  them.  Take  the  plea  which  is  in 
proof  on  this  point.  If  you  will  read  that 
plea  attentively — I  have  read  that  plea  as 
attentively  as  I  think  I  ever  read  anything 
in  my  life,  during  these  days — I  think  you 
must  come  to  the  conviction  that  there  are 
doctrines  charged  as  belonging  to  the  Pres- 
byterian Church — charged  as  being  a  part  of 
its  formulated  theology — which  are  held  up 
to  opprobrium  by  being  misrepresented — by 
being  caricatured.  Such  is  the  case  with  that 
doctrine  which  he  calls  the  "terrific  doctrine 
of  hell."  Well,  hell  is  a  terrific  doctrine  in 
our  standards  ;  but  it  is  no  more  terrific  in 
our  standards  than  it  is  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. I  know  no  words  that  ever  taught 
the  terror  of  hell  so  terrifically  as  the  words 
of  the  blessed  Master  himself.  Does  that 
make  his  a  "religion  of  despair?"  I  cannot 
see  that  this  doctrine  is  any  more  terrific  in 
the  standards  than  it  is  terrific  in  the  words 
of  Jesus.  Is  it  fair,  then,  and  is  it  right  to 
represent  the  church  in  that  way  before  the 
world  ? 

Then,  Prof.  Swing,  in  that  plea,  has 
spoken  of  the  destruction  of  the  human 
will ;  of  the  standards  as  teaching  the  de- 
struction of  the  human  will — as  teaching 
the  independent  sovereignty  of  God  to  the 
extent  of  destroying  the  will ;  and  there 
are  persons  in  this  city  who  believe  that  this 
is  the  doctrine  of  the  standards.  What  a 
misrepresentation  of  the  doctrine.  We  have 
a  chapter  in  our  Confession  on  the  decrees  of 
God,  but  we  have  another  chapter  on  the 
free  agency  of  man  ;  and  while  we  hold  the 
one,  we  hold  the  other.  The  Presbyterian 
Church  has  never  held  any  doctrine  which 


did  impugn  or  destroy  the  free  agency  of 
man,  or  look  towards  "a  dark  fatalism." 
How  can  we  be  loyal  to  the  Presbyterian 
Church  when  we  represent  her  as  teaching 
that  doctrine,  or  as  having  ever  taught  such 
a  doctrine  ?  We  are  not  responsible  for 
what  Luther  taught.  We  are  not  responsi- 
ble, even,  for  what  Calvin  taught.  Our 
standards  go  back  only  to  the  Westminster 
Assembly  of  1643;  and  to  go  back  to  the 
reformers  you  have  to  go  one  hundred  years 
beyond  thtit  time.  We  are  not  bound  by 
the  individual  utterances  of  the  reformers 
Calvin,  Zwinglius  or  Luther.  Now,  our 
system  has  never  taught  any  such  doctrine 
as  that,  and  it  is  not  right  to  represent  the 
Presbyterian  Church  before  the  world  as 
responsible  for  the  doctrine  which  impugns 
or  destroys  the  free  agency  of  man. 

The  same  may  be  said  of  his  treatment  of 
our  doctrine  of  salvation  by  faith,  as  some- 
thing opposed  to  a  holy  life ;  as  if  our 
Church  had  not  always  contended  for  holi- 
ness and  good  works,  as  the  essential  fruits 
and  evidence  of  a  justifying  faith.  So  also, 
as  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Divine  decrees, 
election  (  r  predestination — God's  eternal 
purpose,  according  to  the  counsel  of  His 
will,  whereby  for  His  own  glory  He  hath 
foreordained  whatsoever  comes  to  pass.  Our 
standards  do,  indeed,  contain  the  doctrine  of 
election  and  the  doctrine  of  reprobation — 
the,  election  of  the  righteous  to  life  ,  and  the 
reprobation  of  the  wicked  to  death.  But  in 
what  light  has  Prof.  Swing  held  up  that 
doctrine?  Take  a  single  example.  Now, 
to  make  the  point  plain,  I  need  not  quote 
more  than  a  single  passage,  and  submit  it  to 
you  if  it  does  not  fix  the  point  I  am  now 
making  as  to  the  fixct  that  he  derides  these 
doctrines.  It  is  on  page  23,  of  "Truths  for 
To-day."  The  passage  has  already  been 
read  in  the  Court.  I  will  only  read  a  part ; 
I  need  not  read  the  context : 

"Rubric,  surplice,  prayer-book,  two  souls 
of  Christ,  the  Easter  time,  the  transfigura- 
tion light,  the  election,  the  predestination, 
the  laying  on  of  hands — all  count  no  more 
with  the  thoughtful  historian  seeking  for  the 
merits  of  an  age,  than  count  the  customs  of 
those  eras  or  the  carriages  they  drove.  We 
place  them  below  price." 

What  is  placed  below  price?  Is  it  some 
peculiar  theory  about  election  or  predestina- 
tion— any  one  of  the  theories  ever  promul- 
gated in  one  of  our  declarations — the  Auburn, 


KEY.  DR.  L.  J.  HALSEY'S  OPINION. 


2ia  • 


or  any  other  declaration  ?  Why,  "  the  elec- 
tion," "  the  predestination  "  are  placed  pre- 
cisely in  the  same  category  with  these  other 
things ;  and  the  passage  closes  with  the  de- 
claration— "  we  place  them  below  price."  It 
is  not  simply  that  the  historian  would  pass 
them  over  in  getting  up  his  accounts  of  the 
merits  of  an  age,  but  it  closes  with  that  ex- 
pression :  "  We  place  them  below  price." 
That  is  to  .«ay,  we  place  election  and  predes- 
tination, the  very  substance  of  one  of  our 
■whole  chapters  in  the  Confession  of  Faith — 
we  place  them  precisely  where  wo  place  these 
discussions  about  Easter  time  and  the  prayer 
book,  and  the  rubric,  and  the  surplice,  and 
the  two  souls  of  Christ,  and  the  laying  on  of 
hands. 

Oh,  can  you  say,  fellow  Presbyters,  that 
this  is  being  loyal  to  the  Confession  of  Faith  ? 
Can  you  say  that  it  is  right  for  him,  or  for 
any  one,  thus  to  hold  up  to  the  public,  great 
fundamental  doctrines  which  constitute  a 
part,  and  an  integral  part  of  the  Confession 
of  Faith,  a  part  too  of  the  Scriptures  of  God  ? 
Now,  bear  with  me  while  I  repeat  the  point, 
that  it  is  not  some  mode  of  explaining  this, 
that  or  the  other  doctrine,  but  it  is  the  doc- 
trine in  its  entireness.  Can  you  strike  the 
whole  doctrine  of  election  down,  or  of  pre- 
destination down  ?  But  this  sentence,  if  it 
does  anything,  strikes  the  whole  doctrine 
down.  How  can  we  say  that  one  can  preach 
the  doctrine  of  our  church  who  will  utter 
before  the  public  language   of  that  sort? 

Now  I  can  see  very  well  how  it  is  that 
Prof.  Swing  has  gone  on  from  step  to  step, 
carried  along  as  I  think  by  his  intense, 
yearning  sympathy  for  mankind,  by  his 
great  charity  and  love,  until  he  has  come  to 
hold  in  disregard  and  disrepute  these  great 
doctrines  of  the  standards  and  the  Scriptures. 
His  preaching  has  been  a  perpetual  appeal  to 
what  is  mainly  the  humanitarian  system, 
and  the  humanitarian  view  of  the  gospel — a 
God  all  merciful,  and  a  Saviour  that  is  will- 
ing to  embrace  the  whole  world  without  dis- 
crimination— a  church  actual,  philanthropic, 
human.  It  is  clear  to  see  that  one  may  be 
carried  in  that  direction,  that  one  may  give 
his  whole  heart  and  soul  and  mind  to  that 
sort  of  popular  preaching  until  he  will  virtu- 
ally preach  another  gospel,  until  he  will 
utterly  ignore  the  justice  of  God ;  for  a  God 
too  merciful  is  a  God  unjust.  It  seems  to  me 
he  has  been  carried  along  to  that  degree*  that 
he  so  far  exalts  the  humanitarian  view,  and 


so  far  exalts  the  mercy  and  love  of  God  as  to 
obscure  and  ignore  these  other  important 
attributes  of  God  and  great  doctrinal  truths 
of  our  Confession. 

I  have  not  advoi'ted — though  I  feel  that  I 
ought — to   that    doctrine    which    has    been 
presented  in  the  plea,  and  frequently  referred 
to  here,  and  which   is  itself  a  woeful  carica- 
ture, not  only  of  our  standards,  but  of  Calvin- 
ism itself  in  Calvin's  own  case — I  refer  to 
the  damnation  of  infants.     Now  our  stand- 
ards not  only  do  not  teach  the  damnation  of 
infants,  but  all  the  defenders  and  commenta- 
tors of  our  standards  for  2o0  years — that  is 
to  say,  ever  since  they  have  been  held — have 
repudiated  the  doctrine  of  infant  damnation, 
as  forming  no  part  of  our  sj'stem;  and  we  do 
not  more  heartily  repudiate  that  doctrine  to- 
day than  our  fathers  did  before  us.     I  have 
read,  and  very  carefully  read — I  think  there 
is  no  department  in  which  I  have  read  with 
so  much  care,  and  to  such  an  extent — the 
history  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  this 
country  for  170  years — from  its  origin  down, 
embracing  both   the  branches.     I  have  read 
the  individual  lives  of  our  ministers  ;  and  in 
all  my  reading  in  this  department  of  Pres- 
byterian  history,   I   have   not  met   with   a 
single  case  of  a  Presbyterian  minister  in  all 
our  galaxy  of  ministers  from  Makemie  down 
to  our  own  day,  who  has  ever   taught  any 
such  doctrine  as  that — who  has  ever  main- 
tained the  doctrine  of  the  damnation  of  in- 
fants.   And  yet  there  are  persons  in  our  city 
who  are  led  to  believe  that  our  leaders  in  the 
past  have  taught  that  doctrine — thatour  Con- 
fession teaches  it.    I  have  had  ladies  to  come 
to  me  within  the  past  two  or  three  weeks 
troubled  on  that  point,  and  it  has  been  asked 
by   our   Sabbath   School   children   of   their 
teachers; — "Is  it  true  that  your  Confession  of 
Faith  teaches  the  doctrine  of  the  danination 
of  infants  ?" 

Mr.  Walker:  Has  not  that  been  charged 
upon  the  church  long  befuio  Prof.  Swing 
preached  ? 

Dr.  Halsey :  Yes  ;  but  we  have  always  held 
that  the  charge  was  false.  Prof.  Swing  said 
that  he  has  had  to  meet  the  charge,  and  we 
all  have  had  to  meet  it.  There  is  probably 
not  a  man  in  our  ministry  who  has  not  been 
called  to  meet  it.  But  how  has  he  met  it  ? 
Has  he  met  it — as  we  have  done  with  an  in- 
dignant denial — bj^  saying  it  is  not  taught  in 
the  standards  ?  All  that  is  taught  there  is 
the  election  of  infants   who  die  in  infancy, 


214. 


THE  TKIAL  OF  KEV.     DAVID  SWING. 


just  as  the  election  of  adults  who  believe  is 
taught ;  and  we  have  always  met  it  in  pre- 
cisely this  way,  that  this  language  does  not 
teach  or  imply  the  charge.  Calvin  himself 
did  not  hold  this  doctrine  of  the  damnation 
of  infants.  I  think  it  is  just  that  I  should, 
while  on  this  point,  in  order  that  certain 
views  which  have  gone  abroad  should  be 
corrected — I  think  it  is  just  that  I  should 
state  here,  in  passing,  if  you  will  allow  the 
digression,  the  views  of  Calvin,  as  they  have 
ijeen  well  stated  by  the  late  Dr.  Thomas 
Smythe,  one  of  the  most  learned  men  in  this 
department  of  history  that  our  church  has 
ever  produced,  and  whose  works  are  on  the 
shelves  of  all  our  theological  libraries.  Hav- 
ing lost  several  children  about  twenty-five 
or,  perhaps,  thirty  years  ago, he  was  led  to  in- 
vestigate this  whole  subject  of  infant  salva- 
tion; and  he  published  a  book  in  regard  to  it 
in  1848 — a  book  called,  "Bereaved  Parents 
Consoled,"  in  the  course  of  which  he  goes 
fully  into  this  whole  question,  and  examines 
the  doctrines  back  to  the  Reformation,  and 
even  before  the  Reformation.  I  give  you  now 
his  summing  up  as  regards  the  subject  of 
Calvin's  views,  page  24. 

"Calvin  clearly  recognized  the  fact  that 
all  infants  are  involved  in  the  guilt  of  Adam's 
sin,  and  therefore  liable  to  the  misery  in 
which  it  has  involved  our  race.  But  at  the 
same  time  he  encourages  the  belief,  that  they 
are  redeemed  from  their  evils  by  Christ,  are 
capable  of  Regeneration,  and  are,  when  taken 
away  in  infancy,  '  redeemed  by  the  blood  of 
the  Lamb.'" 

Dr.  Patterson. — I  would  say  that  is  not 
Calvinism. 

Dr.  Halsey. — It  is  Smythe 's  statement  of 
Calvin's  own  view  ;  it  is  on  the  24th  and 
25th  pages  of  this  book,  and  in  the  foot- 
notes he  gives  you  the  references  to  the  "In- 
stitutes." I  have  myself  examined  the  "In- 
stitutes."    Let  me  continue  the  reading. 

"Calvin  argues  against  those  who,  like 
the  Anabaptists,  asserted  that  regenera- 
tion cannot  take  place  in  early  infancy. 
For,  says  he,  if  they  must  be  left  among  the 
children  of  Adam,  they  are  left  in  death,  for 
in  Adam  only  can  Ave  die.  On  the  contrary, 
Christ  commands  them  to  be  brought  to 
Him.  Wh}^  ?  Because  he  is  life.  To  give 
them  life,  therefore,  He  makes  them  par- 
take of  himself,  while  these  men,  by  driving 
them  away  from  Him,  adjudged  them  to 
death  !     He  then  goes  on  to  prove,  by  in- 


contestible  arguments,  that  infants  both  have 
been  and  can  be  regenerated  by  God.  And 
in  his  Commentary  on  the  words  of  our 
Saviour,  'Of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven,' 
v/ithout  any  limitation  of  his  meaning,  he 
unequivocally  declares  that  'God  adopts  in- 
fants, and  washes  them  in  the  blood  of  His 
Son,'  and  that  'they  are  regenerated  by 
Christ  as  among  His  flock.'  In  this  passage 
he  adds,  'Christ  is  not  speaking  of  the  gen- 
eral guilt  in  which  all  the  descendants  of 
Adam  are  involved,  but  only  threatening 
the  despisers  of  the  Gospel  who  proudly  and 
obstinately  reject  the  grace  that'  is  offered 
them.'  I  likewise  oppose  a  contrary  argu- 
ment :  all  those  whom  Christ  blesses  are  ex- 
empted from  the  curse  of  Adam,  and  the 
wrath  of  God  ;  and  as  it  is  known  that  in- 
fants were  blessed  by  Him,  it  follows  that 
they  are  exempted  from  death.  Certain  it 
is  that  Calvinists  were  foremost  in  over- 
throwing the  dogma  that  baptism  was  essen- 
tially connected  with  salvation,  and  in  es- 
tablishing the  truth,  that  the  want  of  it  does 
not  militate  against  their  future  safety." 

Zwinglius  went  still  further  than  Calvin, 
and  taught  the  absolute  universal  salvation 
of  all  infants  of  believers  and  heathen  alike. 
Calvin  did  not  tench  the  damnation  of  in- 
fants, but  he  showed  a  way  whereby,  through 
the  blood  of  Christ  and  the  regenerating  in- 
fluences of  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  infants  of 
believers  were  certainly  saved — that  other 
infants  dying  in  infancy  were  saved  on  the 
same  ground,  because  that  made  them  all  the 
elect  of  God  ;  and  he  left  the  way  open  for 
the  salvation  of  all  others,  by  the  blood  of 
Christ  and  regeneration  of  the  Spirit.  That 
was  the  doctrine  of  Calvin,  if  I  have  not 
wholly  misunderstood  him;  and  this  is  the 
judgment  given  by  one  whom,  I  think,  is 
competent  H'-thority  to  tell  us  what  Calvin 
said. 

But  even  if  it  were  true  that  Calvin  and 
Luther  taught  the  doctrine  in  question,  they 
lived  one  hundred  years  before  the  period  of 
the  Westminster  Assembly,  and  we  are  not 
responsible  for  their  individual  opinions.  I 
am  sorry  that  Dr.  Patterson  seemed  to  make 
our  church  responsible  because  it  had  pub- 
lished the  "Institutes"  of  Calvin. 

Dr.  Patterson. — I  beg  to  say,  Mr.  Mode- 
rator, that  I  did  not  mean  to  make  the 
church  responsible  for  Calvin's  opinion,  but 
to  say  it  was  a  reason  why  it  should  be  dis- 


KEV.  DR.  L.  J.  HALSEY'S  OPINION. 


215 


avowed,  because  it  seemed  to  throw  a  shade 
over  our  interpretation. 

Dr.  Halsey  .-—I  think  all  the  Assembly 
meant  by  that  was,  that  they  would  publish 
the  Institutes  as  any  other  good  book  ;  of 
course  the  Church  has  never  adopted  the  in- 
dividual opinions  of  Calvin  ;  and  in  publish- 
ing the  works  of  Calvin,  the  Church  holds 
itself  irresponsible,  just  as  it  does  in  the  case 
of  other  authors,  the  Church  not  being  held 
responsible  for  every  jot  and  tittle  that  may 
be  published  by  its  Boards.  The  author  is 
responsible — not  the  church. 

But  as  Dr.  Patterson  has  set  that  matter 
right,  I  will  pass  on. 

Let  me  advert,  now,  in  a  Avord  to  these 
specifications  under  the  Charges.  It  has 
been  alleged,  but  I  think  without  cause,  that 
the  several  specifications  under  those  Charges 
are  not  as  to  matters  of  fact,  but  simply  as  to 
words  or  opinions ;  and  therefore  we  cannot 
sit  in  judgment  on  them — we  cannot  recog- 
nize them  as  pertinent.  But  clearly  that 
whole  representation  confounds  two  things 
which  are  very  distinct.  It  confounds  a 
criminal  prosecution  with  a  prosecution  for 
error.  Now,  if  this  were  a  criminal  action, 
that  reasoning  would  all  be  true,  and  Mr. 
Noyes  would  be  correct  in  every  authority 
he  cited  and  every  remark  he  made  about 
specific  acts.  If  it  were  a  criminal  prosecu- 
tion, then  you  would  have  to  specify  time 
and  place  and  particular  acts;  but,  seeing  it 
is  not  that  at  all,  but  simply  a  question  of 
error  in  doctrine,  the  specifications  are  as  to 
the  doctrines  denied  or  impugned.  The 
specification  must  embrace  the  teaching,  if  it 
it  embraces  anything.  The  specifications  un- 
der such  a  charge  could  not  embrace  overt 
acts,  because  no  such  acts  are  covered  by  er- 
ror— no  outward  acts  are  included  in  error. 
The  acts  included  in  error  are  the  errors 
themselves ;  and  here  the  errors  are  on  re- 
cord, and  every  error  charged  is  therefore  a 
particular  act,  if  you  please  to  call  it  so,  be- 
cause it  is  a  departure  from  the  standard,  if 
it  bean  error:  and  it  must  be  judged  of  then, 
not  as  you  judge  of  a  specification  in  a  matter 
of  fact,  but  as  you  judge  of  the  error  in 
teaching. 

From  all  the  attsntion  I  have  been  able  to 
give  to  this  testimony,  and  from  all  the  argu- 
ment on  both  sides — and  I  have  not  missed  a 
day  or  an  hour  in  it  all — and  from  all  the 
reading  I  have  been  able  to  give  to  these  ser- 
mons at  home,  carefully  and  prayerfully,  it 


seems  to  me  that  there  are  three  points  at 
least  in  the  teaching  of  Prof.  Swing  which 
are  departures  from  the  standards.  I  think 
there  are  three  of  the  doctrines — not  to  men- 
tion others — in  which  he  is  liable  to  the 
charge  preferred  against  him.  It  seems  to 
me  that  he  does  not  preach,  and  does  not  hold 
three  doctrines  that  are  among  the  essential 
doctrines  of  our  standards.  They  are,  the 
Supreme  Divinity  of  Christ  Jesus,  as  dift'er- 
entiating  our  system  entirely  from  that  of  the 
Unitarian  churches,  or  the  Eationalistic 
churches  ;  the  decree  of  Election  and  Predes- 
tination, involving  the  doctrine  of  the  Divine 
Sovereignty  in  the  whole  work  of  our  salva- 
tion, as  diflerontiating  our  Church  from  the 
Arminian  or  Wesleyan  Methodist  Churches  ; 
and  then  the  doctrine  of  Justification  bj' 
Faith — by  faith  in  contradistinction  to  justi- 
fication by  works  ;  that  is  to  say,  justification 
by  faith  alone  (though  the  justification  will 
not  stand  alone)  as  diff"erentiating  our  church 
from  the  Pioman  Catholic  doctrine  of  justifi- 
cation. If  we  are  Presbyterians  at  all,  and 
have  any  mission  in  the  world  to  accomplish 
as  Presbyterians,  and  have  any  testimony  to 
bear  in  the  world  as  Presbyterians — if  there 
is  any  distinct  place  for  us  in  the  great  fam- 
ily of  Christendom,  it  is  our  position  as  stand- 
ing on  these  three  points.  These  three  points 
difierentiate  us  from  the  Roman  Catholics, 
from  the  Unitarians,  from  the  Arminians. 
The  difierence  is  wider  in  respect  to  some  of 
these  bodies  than  others.  I  will  admit  that 
we  all  hold  some  things  in  common,  but  it  is 
nevertheless  true  that  these  doctrines  do  thus 
diflferentiate  us  ;  and  in  doing  so,  I  have  al- 
ways felt  that  they  constitute  the  very  glory 
of  our  historic  Church.  We  have  stood  there, 
and  we  have  maintained  these  doctrines  in- 
tact from  the  beginning. 

I  am  not  going  into  the  argument  or  the 
reasons  which  have  led  me  to  take  this  view. 
But  now  as  regards  the  Supreme  Divinity  of 
Jesus  Christ  let  me  say  a  word.  It  has  been 
said  here  that  we  should  be  satisfied  with  the 
statement  of  Dr.  Hodge,  as  made  in  the 
Philadelphia  Convention,  and  quoted  by  Dr. 
Shedd  in  his  answer  to  the  protest  already 
referred  to.  The  quotation  from  Dr.  Hodge 
is  in  these  words:  "If  a  man  comes  to  us 
and  adopts  the  system  of  doctrine  taught  in 
our  Confession,  \ve  have  a  right  to  ask  him  : 
'Do  you  believe  there  are  three  persons  in 
the  Godhead — the  Father,  the  Son  and  the 
Holy  Ghost — and  that  these  three  are  one 


216 


THE  TRIAL  OF  REV.  DAVID  SWING. 


God,  the  same  in  substance,  equal  in  power 
and  glory  ?'  If  he  says,  Yes,  we  are  satisfied. 
We  do  not  call  upon  him  to  explain  how 
three  persons  are  one  God,  or  to  determine 
what  relations  in  the  awful  mysteries  of  the 
Godhead  are  indicated  by  the  terms  Father, 
Son  and  Holy  Ghost." 

Dr.  Hodge  says  that  under  such  cir- 
cumstances he  should  ask  no  more — that  he 
should  be  satisfied.  And  so  should  we  all. 
But  mark  it :  here  are  the  three  j^^TSons  in 
the  one  God,  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost. 
But  now  just  suppose  a  candidate  for  licen- 
sure, or  a  young  man,  a  candidate  for  ordi- 
nation, should  come  before  you  at  the  next 
meeting  of  the  Presbyterj-,  and  instead  of 
repeating  to  you  the  substance  of  that  decla- 
ration— "I  believe  in  the  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Ghost,  as  three  persons,  the  same  in 
substance,  equal  in  power  and  glory  "-suppose 
that,  instead  of  that,  he  should  utter  himself 
in  the  very  language  which  has  been  read  in 
your  hearing,  and  which  it  is  charged  is  not 
sound  doctrine,  that  "Christianity  bears 
readily  the  idea  of  three  offices,  and  permits 
the  one  God  to  appear  in  Father,  or  in  Son, 
or  in  Spirit ;"  and  to  this  should  add,  that 
what  mankind  will  need  most,  and  use  most, 
will  be  these  three  iyifluences,  and  not  the 
enigma  of  three  persons  in  one.  Is  there  a 
Presbytery  in  the  world— in  this  country,  in 
Scotland,  in  Ireland — is  there  a  Presbytery 
anywhere  that  would  feel  this  to  be  sufiicient 
iis  a  declaration  of  belief  in  the  standards  ? 
Is  there  a  Presbytery  anywhere  that  would 
license  or  ordain  a  candidate  making  no 
other  confession  than  this — that  God  may 
appear  in  three  forms — may  assume  three 
offices,  or  exert  three  influences,  appearing 
now  in  Father,  now  in  Son,  and  now  in 
Holy  Ghost  ?  Why,  brethren,  how  can  we 
receive  that  as  an  avowal  of  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity — of  the  threeness  in  one  and  the 
oneness  in  three — three  forms  and  one  God. 
How  can  we  take  that  as  an  explicit  state- 
ment of  doctrine,  when  we  know  that  is  the 
precise  form  of  statement  for  a  doctrine 
which  is  in  antagonism  with  the  doctrine  as 
we  receive  it  ?  Certainly  we  cannot  be  re- 
garded, in  any  sense  of  the  term,  as  holding 
to  the  Supreme  Divinity  and  equality  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  with  God,  if  we  go  no 
farther  than  this. 

Now,  without  dwelling  further  on  the  doc- 
trine of  Election  or  the  Decrees,  let  me  come 
to  the  last  of  these  fundamental  doctrines — 


the  doctrine  of  Justification  by  Faith.  The 
sermon  on  Faith,  in  "Truths  for  To- Day," 
is  the  sermon  which  seems  to  me  the  most 
erroneous.  I  think  the  whole  teaching  of 
that  sermon  is  in  conflict  with  our  standards. 
I  have  not  met  with  any  such  teaching  as 
that  from  any  one  that  may  be  regarded  as  a 
great  representative  teacher  in  any  school  of 
Presbyterian  theology.  The  text  here  is : 
"He  that  believeth  on  the  Son  hath  everlast- 
ing life,  but  he  that  believeth  not  the  Son 
shall  not  see  life,  but  the  wrath  of  God 
abideth  on  him." 

When  I  sat  down  to  read  thsit  sermon,  I 
put  my  mind,  so  far  as  I  was  able,  in  the 
posture  of  a  hearer — in  the  posture  of  one 
that  was  desirous  to  find  the  way  all  clear 
and  all  right  with  our  brother,  in  this  great 
fundamental  doctrine;  for  it  seemed  to  me 
that  if  there  was  a  text  in  all  the  Bible 
which  went  to  the  very  essentials — the  very 
vitals  of  religion  and  of  our  faith,  it  was  thai 
text.  I  thought  to  myself,  if  we  should  find 
the  true  way  of  salvation  pointed  out  any- 
where, it  would  be  from  the  passage  which  I 
have  just  quoted. 

Now  let  me  remark  that  in  this  sermon, 
from  the  beginning  to  the  end,  while  it  is  one 
of  the  most  vital  points  of  our  religion,  there 
is  no  mention  of  Christ's  righteous7iess  what- 
ever. There  is  rot  the  slightest  reference  to 
the  righteousness  of  Christ  in  the  sermon. 
The  word  righteousness  is  used  several  times, 
but  it  is  man's  righteousness  in  the  sense  of 
holiness — in  the  sense  of  a  perfect  or  good 
life.  Holiness  is  insisted  on,  as  in  this  sen- 
tence, for  example,  on  the  239th  page  of  the 
volume :  "  If  a  departure  from  righteous- 
ness was  man's  fall,  a  return  to  it  will  be  his 
safety — the  heaven  of  his  soul.  If  this  be 
true,  then  Christ  is  a  Saviour  in  so  far  as  he 
helps  man  back  to  that  high  place  from 
which  he  fell  in  this  career." 

Here  it  is  man's  righteousness.  But  how 
does  Christ  help  man  in  this  righteousness  ? 
Not  a  syllable  is  said  as  to  the  method  of  that 
help,  or  the  manner  of  that  help,  or  the 
ground  of  it — nothing  as  to  the  divine  right- 
eousness as  being  a  part  of  the  sinner's 
righteousness — as  laying  the  foundation  for 
the  sinner's  salvation.  From  beginning  to 
end,  the  whole  idea  of  a  divine  righteousness 
as  being  needful,  as  lying  at  the  foundation, 
is  ignored,  and  the  only  righteousness  men- 
tioned throughout  the  sermon  is  the  right- 
eousness of  man,  and  all  the  representation 


KEY.  DK.  L.  J.  HALSEY'S  OPINION. 


217 


of  Christ  is  where  Christ  is  regarded  as  a 
helper  in  this  righteousness.  How  could  the 
preacher  leave  out  so  fundamental  a  point  in 
such  preaching  as  this? — preaching  salva- 
tion— but  salvation  having  no  reference  to 
the  atoning  righteousness  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ? 

Then  again  there  is  no  mention,  in  this  ser- 
mon, of  faith  as  being  the  gift  of  God  ;  "  saved 
by  faith  " — but  nowhere  is  that  faith  repre- 
sented as  the  gift  of  God  ;  nowhere  is  that 
faith  represented  as  being  produced  by  the 
spirit  of  God.  Christ's  righteousness  is 
ignored  ;  faith  is  spoken  of  as  justifying,  but 
faith  is  nowhere  represent  d  as  God's  gift,  or 
as  the  product  of  the  spirit's  agency  ;  but,  on 
the  contrary,  throughout  the  sermon  expres- 
sions of  this  sort  are  used.  Page  240 :  Faith 
is  called  a  "natural  law,"  or  a  "constant 
force  acting  naturally."  On  page  241,  belief 
is  said  to  be  a  "  permanent  law  of  intellectual 
life."  "Faith  is  this  permanent  natural 
force."  Page  241  again  :  "Faith  in  Christ 
is  a  rich  soil,  of  which  righteousness  is  the 
gorgeous  bloom."  That  is,  htwian  righteous- 
ness, of  course — man's  own  righteousness — is 
the  bloom  that  springs  from  that  rich  soil ; 
but  faith  in  Christ  is  this  soil,  and  that  faith 
is  a  permanent  natural  force,  and  is  the  law 
of  intellectual  life. 

Then  again  :  "Faith  is  the  drift  of  one's 
heart  and  mind  in  morals.  All  definitions 
of  it,  as  being  a  belief  in  things  not  well 
known,  or  a  belief  in  testimony,  or  in  doc- 
trines hard  to  understand,  are  wasted 
words." 

How  does  that  agree  with  the  Bible  ? 
"  Faith  is  the  substance  of  things  hoped  for, 
the  evidence  of  things  not  seen."  Faith  is 
belief  in  God's  testimony  respecting  his  Son. 
Faith  is  the  belief  of  the  very  doctrines  which 
some  of  the  disciples  found  too  hard  to  be- 
lieve, and  went  away  from  following  the 
Master,  when  he  said  to  those  remaining, 
"  "Will  ye  also  go  away  ?"  How  does  that  ac- 
cord with  what  is  here  said  on  faith  as  being 
the  "drift  of  one's  mind  and  morals,"  and 
all  "  definitions  of  it  as  being  belief  in  things 
not  well  known,  or  a  belief  in  testimony,  or 
in  doctrines  hard  to  be  understood,  are 
wasted  words?" 

Mr.  Walker. — How  about  James? 

Dr.  Halsey. — James  is  not  on  trial  here. 

Mr.  Walker. — I  rather  supposed  he  was. 

I>r.  Patterson. — James  is  on  trial. 

Dr.  Halsey.— Ag&in,   page   244:    "Faith 


saves  the  soul,  therefore,  not  by  any  arbitrary 
decree,  not  by  any  form  of  equivalents  or 
compensation."  I  don't  know  precisely 
what  that  means — "  equivalents  or  compen- 
sation ;"  but  construing  it  according  to  the 
meaning  most  obvious  to  my  mind,  it  seems 
as  if  it  did  strike  at  the  act  of  justification, 
I  cannot  say.     But  let  me  read  it  again  : 

'  Faith  saves  the  soul,  therefore,  not  by 
any  arbitrary  decree,  not  by  any  form  of 
equivalents  or  compensation,  but  by  its  na- 
tural action.  It  urges  the  soul  along  toward 
virtue,  just  as  the  ground  presses  forward  its 
imbedded  germs.  The  older  philosophers 
made  an  expression,  naiura  natiirans  'nature 
acting  naturally,'  nature  in  its  daily  method. 
In  the  salvation  of  the  soul,  faith  is  'nature 
acting  naturally.'" 

"Well,  now  if  that  be  true,  then  where  is 
grace?  If  that  be  the  doctrine,  then  where 
is  Paul  ?  "Where  is  the  agency  of  the  Divine 
Spirit  ?  It  is  not  brought  to  light  in  that 
sermon  at  all,  but  faith  is  represented  as  a 
natural  force — natura  naturnns ;  the  old  ex- 
pression is  adopted  as  expressing  its  action — 
nature  acting  naturally.  Is  this  the  doctrine 
of  our  standards  ?  Is  this  the  doctrine  of  the 
Confession  of  Faith,  or  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  either  historical  or  actual?  I  have 
not  met  any  such  doctrine  as  that,  taught  in 
a  Presbyterian  Church.  I  feel  perfectly 
authorized  to  say  that  no  such  view  as  that 
has  been  taught — ever  has  been  taught  in  a 
single  theological  school  of  our  Church.  It 
seems  to  me  that  this  doctrine  strikes  at  the 
very  foundation  of  evangelical  truth ;  this 
doctrine  is  in  the  very  teeth  of  doctrines 
which  we  hold  to  be  as  clear  as  any  doctrines 
that  God  has  ever  revealed.  I  see,  in  all  this 
sermon,  neither  agency  of  Spirit  nor  gift  of 
God's  grace,  but  faith  is  just  a  product  of 
the  mind  without  any  supernatural  a^ncy 
whatsoever. 

This  is  in  keeping  with  his  teaching  in  other 
sermons.  Let  us  refer  to  page  23  of  the  same 
volume — "  Truths  for   To-Day."     He  says: 

"There  is  a  certain  divine  instinct  in  man 
that  enables  him,  when  measuring  the  past, 
to  become  noble,  and  seize  upon  the  valuable 
elements  in  character,  and  pass  by  the  tem- 
porary without  any  doubt  or  regret;  but 
dealing  with  the  present,  this  divine  instinct 
seems  to  desert  us  ;  and  grasping  an  accident 
in  our  arms,  we  permit  virtue  and  faith  and 
charity,  God  and  heaven,  to  fall  through  to 
the  dust." 


218 


THE  TKIAL  OF  EEV.  DAVID  SWING. 


"A  certain  divine  instinct  in  man  !" 
Where  do  we  find  any  sucli  doctrine  as  that 
taught,  either  in  the  standards  or  in  the 
Scriptures  ?  Now,  it  seems  to  me  that  the 
whole  doctrine  of  the  sermon  on  Faith  is  er- 
roneous ;  and  I  take  that  sermon  as  a  test 
sermon,  because  that  sermon  is  on  a  text 
which  lies  at  the  very  foundations  of  saving 
truth ;  and  if  we  can  find  the  way  of  salva- 
tion indicated  anywhere  we  ought  to  find  it 
there.  So  far  as  I  can  judge  of  the  doctrine 
taught  here,  it  is  a  compound  of  the  old 
Eoman  Catholic  doctrine  of  justification 
whicli  confounds  it  with  sanctiflcation,  and 
makes  it  mean  simply  that  we  are  justified 
on  the  ground  of  our  own  holy  life — that 
God  sees  in  us  a  good  character,  and  on  the 
ground  of  that  character  justifies  us — along 
with  a  more  recent  and  more  plausible  doc- 
trine, which  is  called  the  Moral  Influence  doc- 
trine, or  the  doctrine  of  Moral  Suasion, 
which  is  held  by  the  writers  and  preachers 
in  the  Unitarian  Church,  and  other  kindred 
denominations.  There  is  this  moral  influ- 
ence theory  traceable  in  the  sermon,  and  it 
would  seem  to  mean  this  in  some  expressions, 
while  in  others,  it  would  seem  to  go  back  to 
the  old  doctrine  of  good  works  as  held  by 
the  Church  of  Kome,  against  which  the  Ee- 
formers  protested.  I  cannot  see  that  Prof. 
Swing  represents  faith  at  all,  anywliere,  as 
the  gift  of  God,  or  as  the  product  of  the 
Spirit  of  God,  but  simply  as  a  natural  qual- 
ity— an  instinct  of  the  soul.  In  other  words, 
faith  is  a  work;  it  just  comes  to  that.  We 
are  all  theologians  enough  to  see  that  if  this 
is  the  true  view  of  faith,  then  faith  is  the 
work  par  excellence,  that  saves  the  soul.  But 
then,  it  is  man's  worlc  alone  ;  it  is  not  God's 
work  at  all ;  and  salvation  is  no  longer  by 
grace,  but  of  works.  It  is, par  excellence  the 
saving  grace,  but  it  is  a  human  work,  and 
therefore  it  is  in  direct  and  palpable  conflict 
with  the  Scriptures.  This  is  not  Presbyterian 
Gospel.  It  is  not  the  evangelical  Gospel; 
and  if  Paul  were  here  to-day,  would  he  en- 
dorse such  preaching?  Can  we  suppose  that 
the  apostle,  after  having  taught  the  doctrine 
he  did  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Ga'iatians,  and  in 
that  to  the  Eomans,  would  accept  this  as  a 
true  teaching  ? 

Now,  let  me  come  to  another  point — for  I 
will  hasten  to  a  conclusion — let  me  come  to 
notice  what  is  laid  down  for  our  guidance  in 
the  standards.  In  the  Book  of  Discipline, 
chap.  5,  sec.  3,  we  find  : 


"Heresy  and  schism  may  be  of  such  a  na- 
ture as  to  infer  deposition  ;  but  errors  ought 
to  be  carefully  considered ;  Avhcther  they 
strike  at  the  vitals  of  religion,  and  are  in- 
dustriously spread  ;  or  whether  they  arise 
from  the  weakness  of  the  human  understand- 
ing, and  are  not  likely  to  do  much  injury." 

Clearly,  these  errors  do  not  come  under 
that  last  description.  They  arise  from  no 
Aveakness  of  the  understanding,  and  I  do  not 
think  it  would  be  said  that  they  are  errors — 
if  they  are  errors  at  all — which  are  harmless, 
or  are  not  likely  to  do  much  injury.  If  what 
I  liave  said  is  true,  then  these  errors  c?o  strike 
at  the  vitals  of  religion,  and  it  is  clear  that 
they  are  industriously  spread.  They  are 
proclaimed  on  the  housetop.  They  have  been 
preached  for  years,  and  they  are  circulated 
in  tlie  newspapers,  and  now  circulated  in  the 
printed  volumes  ;  and  if  there  is  error  at  all, 
it  is  error  that  is  not  concealed,  but  is  pro- 
claimed, and  so  far  as  it  is  error  at  all,  it  can- 
not fail  to  be  injurious.  There  is  no  man  in 
this  broad  land  whose  preaching  carries  a 
wider  influence  ;  and  if  it  be  erroneous  at 
all,  it  is  error  proclaimed  in  such  a  way, 
and  carrying  with  it  such  an  influence  that 
we  cannot  tell  how  much  damage  it  may  do 
in  the  long  run.  It  will  not  do  for  us  to  take 
the  ground,  simply,  of  falling  back  on  the 
Bible.  We  must  stand,  in  this  judgment,  on 
the  Standards.  To  go  back  and  say  that  he 
preaches  in  accordance  with  the  Bible  ,  will 
not  do.  I  will  venture  to  say,  that  when  Dr. 
Patterson  read  here  yesterday,  that  every- 
thing in  the  Bible  pertaining  to  the  doctrine  of 
future  punishment  might  be  written  on  a  page, 
I  will  venture  to  say  that  there  was  not  a  min- 
ister of  any  of  the  churches,  however  far  de- 
parted from  the  faith — Unitarian,  Universal- 
ists,  or  any  other — who  would  not  say  "Amen 
to  that ;  if  that  is  all,  I  am  as  good  a  Presbyte- 
rian as  any  individual  in  this  body."  Are  we 
indeed  ready  to  throw  open  the  door,  and  let  all 
in  to  one  broad  church,  and  stand  together  on 
the  Bible  alone,  without  any  authorized  stan- 
dards ?  Well,  I  am  not  ready  for  that.  We 
have  a  church  :  we  have  an  opinion  as  Pres- 
byterians: we  have  our  diff'erences  of  opin- 
ion as  denominations  of  Christians  :  we  have 
our  respective  creeds  ;  and  it  will  not  do 
simply  to  plead,  when  worsted  in  the  argu- 
ment, and  it  is  found  impossible  to  reconcile 
this  teaching  with  the  standards — it  will  not 
do  to  go  back  and  say  :  Then  this  teaching  is 
in   accordance  with  the  Bible.     For  if  it  is 


PvEV.  DR.  L.  J.  HALSEY'S  OPINION. 


219 


in  the  Bible,  then  all  other  teaching  may  bo 
said  to  be  in  accordance  with  the  Bible  ;  and 
■where  do  we  stand  ?  Are  wo  ready  to  merge 
all  denominations  into  one,  and  sinlv  all  dif- 
ferences out  of  view,  and  all  adherence  to 
the  symbols  of  the  past  ?  The  time  has  not 
come,  JCr.  Moderator,  when  the  church  is 
ready  for  that. 

Dr.  Patterson: — Mr.  Moderator:  I  wish 
to  explain  what  I  said  of  the  quantity  of 
teaching  on  the  subject  of  endless  punishment 
in  the  Scriptures.  I  said  that  it  had  to  do 
with  the  frequency  with  which  a  minister 
should  preach  upon  that  point. 

Dr.  Halsey : — I  accept  Dr.  Patterson's  ex- 
planation. 

I  do  not  need  much  more  time,  brethren. 
I  have  spoken,  now,  longer  than  I  expected. 
Let  me  revert,  for  a  moment,  to  the  prin- 
ciples which  must  govern  us  in  our  action,  as 
laid  down  in  the  Craighead  case,  and  as  re- 
aflBrmed,  some  of  them,  in  the  Barnes  case. 
You  will  find  them  in  the  Digest.  I  need 
not  read  them.  There  are  three  principles: 
One  accused  of  error  is  not  to  be  condemned 
by  mere  inference.  Of  course  we  all  stand 
by  that.  We  are  not  to  condemn  any  man 
by  an  inference.  "Well,  it  is  clear  to  my 
mind,  that  there  is  something  more  than  in- 
ference here.  It  has  been  charged  that  these 
are  mere  inferences  in  the  prosecutor's  mind. 
It  is  clear  to  me  that  we  are  not  to  deny  all 
the  ordinary  laws  of  construction  in  passing 
upon  the  matter.  If  the  language  I  have 
quoted  from  the  sermon  on  Faith  does  not 
constitute  error — a  dangerous  error—  error 
which  strikes  at  the  very  vitals  of  religion — 
then  I  do  not  know  where  you  will  find  error. 
Then  again :  No  one  is  to  be  condemned 
for  holding  error,  provided  his  language  can 
be  construed  in  his  favor.  If  a  favorable 
construction  can  be  given  to  the  words,  he  is 
entitled  to  that  favor.  If  the  words  can  be 
so  construed  as  to  teach  the  doctrine  which 
he  is  charged  with  denying,  of  course  he  has 
the  benefit  of  it.  But  it  is  clear  to  me,  that 
this  cannot  be  pleaded  in  this  case  ;  that  the 
language  is  plain,  direct  and  explicit  lan- 
guage, and  language,  some  of  it,  in  the  very 
face  of  any  averment  that  can  be  made  to 
the  contrary. 

Then,  again:  a  rule  is  laid  down  that  the 
errors  must  be  disavowed  by  the  accused 
person,  and  that  the  contrary  doctrines,  or 
the  doctrines  opposed  to  these  errors — the 
doctrines   impugned — must   be    avowed    by 


him.  So  far  as  I  can  see,  neither  in  the 
plea,  nor  in  the  speech,  did  our  brother  ex- 
pressly disavow  these  doctrinal  errors  alleged 
against  him  ;  and  we  cannot  affirm  that  he 
has  avowed  the  doctrines  impugned,  unless 
you  take  simply  the  plea  '■'■not  gulltif  as  the 
avowal.  I  have  not  hoard  him  avow  that 
the  three  persons  in  the  Godhead  are  one — 
that  they  are  the  same  in  substance,  and 
equal  in  power  and  glory.  I  have  listened 
in  vain  for  any  such  avowal  as  that.  But 
that  avowal  must  be  given  in  case  he  is  to 
meet  this  charge.  I  had  hoped  all  along, 
from  the  time  this  case  began,  that  there 
would  be  a  clean,  full,  square,  and  satisfac- 
tory avowal — not  only  disavowal  of  the  er- 
rors charged,  but  of  an  avowal  of  the  doc- 
trines of  the  Confession  of  Faith.  But  I  do 
not  consider  that  the  brief  statement  at  the 
close  of  the  plea  covers  the  case  at  all.  It 
does  not  seem  to  me  that  that  comes  up  at 
all  to  the  merits  of  the  case.  It  is  not  satis- 
factory, and  cannot  be  regarded  as  satisfac- 
tory, in  view  of  all  the  contrary  statements 
which  we  have  in  evidence  fr«m  the  writer. 

Now  there  is  one  other  point,  and  perhaps 
it  will  weigh  with  many  as  strongly  as  any 
of  the  points  in  favor  of  the  accused.  I  am 
free  to  say  that,  with  my  own  mind,  it  has 
weighed  with  a  greater  weight  than  anything 
else — far  more  than  the  arguments  I  have 
heard,  and  far  more  than  his  own  plea  did. 
The  point  is  this.  In  this  volume  of  ser- 
mons, "  Truths  for  To-day,"  while  we  find 
all  those  errors  that  have  been  pointed  out, 
yet  there  are  many  statements  of  doctrine 
that  sound  evangelical,  and  are  evangelical. 
I  do  not  hesitate  to  say  that  in  these  volumes 
there  are  many  good  things,  there  are  many 
true  things,  there  are  many  scriptural  truths, 
there  are  many  doctrines  in  which  I  can 
heartily  rejoice.  There  is  much  of  good, 
there  is  much  of  Christ,  there  is  much  about 
many  points  which  we  can  regard  as  evan- 
gelical. But  along  with  these  evangelical 
statements,  along  with  these  sound  doctrines, 
stand  these  errors  ;  so  that  the  truth  is  mixtd 
up  with  the  error,  and  the  truth  is  not  dis- 
criminated from  the  error;  the  error  and  the 
truth  are  both  promulgated  and  sent  out  to 
the  world  side  by  side,  in  the  same  volume, 
and  sometimes  in  the  same  discourse;  and 
that  is  the  characteristic  of  all  these  dis- 
courses. 

Well,  what  are  we  to  do?  Are  we  to  take 
the  evangelical,  and  make  that  an  ofi'set  ta 


220 


THE  TPvIAL  OE  EEV.  DAVID  SWING. 


the  unevangelical  ?     Is  that  the  procedure? 
We   are  responsible   for   the   effects  of  the 
teaching  as  we  are  responsible  for  our  own 
teaching.     We  cannot  indorse  error  when  we 
think  it  to  be  error;  we  cannot  be  partakers 
thus  in  promulgating  error.     What  then  are 
we  to  do?     Is  there  no  redress,  no  remedy, 
no  cure  for  the  promulgation  of  fatal  or  dan- 
gerous   errors    in    our    Church  ?      Are    we 
doomed  to  silence,  absolute   and   unbroken, 
when  we  see  heretical  doctrines  creeping  in 
and   undermining   the   very   citadel  of  our 
strength?     And  must  we,  by  our  silence  and 
our   acquiescence,   give   indorsement  to  the 
propagation  of  false  doctrines,  and  thus  be- 
come partakers  of  one   another's   departures 
from,    and   unfaithfulness   to,  the   gospel  of 
Christ  ?     I  do  not  so   understand  the  law  of 
Christ,   and    the    law   of    the   Presbyterian 
Church,   and  I  cannot,  even  by  a  vote,  give 
my    indorsement    to    errors  such  as    these. 
And  you  will  bear  with  me  if  I  say  that  in 
all  the  cases   on   record   of  departure   from 
truth,  the  process  has  always  been  a  gradual 
one — here  a  little  and  there  a  little — a  little 
now,  and  then  a  little  more ;  and  in  the  case 
of  the  person  who  is  thus  gradually  depart- 
ing  from    the   faith,   his   discourse   will  be 
mixed,  and  contain  both  the  good  and  the 
bad — the  right  on  the  one  side,  and  the  wrong 
on  the  other ;  and  it  will  go  on,  ignoring  the 
Divine  sovereignty  and  unduly  exalting  hu- 
man agency  in  the  work  of  salvation,  and 
constantly  preaching  this  humanitarian  gos- 
pel of  boundless  love,  until  at  last  the  error- 
ist  will  be  ready  to  cross  the  line.     Is  not 
that  the  history  of  every  man  who  has  been 
reared  in   a   sound   faith,    and   has   left   the 
faith  of  his  fathers  ?     That  was  remarkably 
the  case  with  the  celebrated  Theodor  Clapp,  of 
New  Orleans ;  and  it  was  many  years  before 
it  could  be  definitely  settled  whether  he  was 
preaching  the  doctrines  of  the  Church  or  not, 
until  at  last,  through  the  process  of  years,  he 
crossed  the   boundary  and  became  a  Unita- 
rian, and  at  last  a  Universalist. 

We  are  then  to  sit  in  judgment  upon  the 
case  as  we  find  it  ;  and  if  we  find  error  here, 
we  must  decide  on  that.  With  these  re- 
marks I  close. 


y 


OPINION  OF  KEV.  DR.  ARTHUR  SWAZEY. 

Mr.  Moderator  :  I  shall  not  tax  the  pa- 
tience of  the  court  by  an  attempt  to  traverse 
this  indictment.  I  speak  againts  its  spirit 
and  its  substantive  charge. 


There  are  some  things  peculiar  in  this  pro- 
secution. When  a  blow  comes  you  naturally 
look  to  see  from  what  quarter.  I  notice  that 
the  parties  behind  the  prosecution  in  Chicago 
opposed  the  Keunion  of  the  churches,  as  I  did, 
but  for  opposite  reasons  ;  but  now  that  the 
Reunion  is  accomplished,  are  not  willing  to 
abide  by  the  terms  of  compact,  as  I  and 
others  strive  to  do. 

Another  thing  peculiar  to  this  case  is  the 
manner  in  which  the  prosecution  was  entered 
upon.  Prof.  Patton  did  not  strive  to  have 
a  mutual  understanding  with  his  co-presbyter, 
Prof.  Swing.  He  did  not  try  to  cover  or  ex- 
plain any  eccentricities  of  thought  (if  such 
there  were)  on  the  part  of  Prof.  Svving,  or 
express  the  hope  that  Prof.  Swing  might  find 
an  easy  explanation  for  any  language  not 
satisfactory  to  him.  But  the  first  move  was 
an  onslaught,  as  upon  an  enemy  of  divine 
revelation.  After  that,  he  did  not  do  what 
the  proprieties  of  the  case  required,  viz. :  call 
together  a  few  trusted  brethren  to  see  if  Prof. 
Swing  could  not  be  brought  into  harmony 
with  others,  and  a  theological  controversy 
avoided.  On  the  contrary,  as  though  he  re- 
garded Prof.  Swing's  peculiarities  a  very  ■■ 
God-send  to  him,  he  flung  down  the  gaunt- 
let by  declaring  in  the  columns  of  The  In- 
terior, and  sending  abroad  in  the  church,  his 
"doubts  "  of  Prof.  Swing's  theological  integ- 
rity ;  a  publication  which  was  not  in  the 
way  of  argument,  and,  was  therefore  defama- 
tory in  the  highest  degree,  and  which,  appar- 
ently, was  designed  to  create  a  public  opinion 
unfavorable  to  the  popular  preacher.  Then 
came  the  formal  charges. 

Again ;  the  management  of  the  case  has 
not  the  look  of  a  desire  simply  to  arrive  at 
the  truth.  Instead  of  allowing  Prof.  Swing 
every  advantage  to  show  his  doctrinal  integ- 
rity, every  movement  of  the  prosecution  has 
been  with  an  apparent  aim  at  something  else. 
If  his  desire  was  to  handle  Prof.  Swing  fair- 
ly in  this  Presbytery,  he  would  not  have 
gone  away  down  into  Kentucky  to  get  on 
the  scent  of  a  friendly  word  written  or 
spoken  to  Robert  Laird  Collier ;  he  would 
not  have  depreciated  the  testimony  of  the 
elders  of  the  Fourth  Church  ;  he  would  not 
have  tried  to  rule  out  Mr.  Waite's  testimony 
in  particular;  he  would  not  have  tried  to 
rule  out  Prof,  Swing's  Wednesday-night 
homilies,  and  sermons  preached  before  the 
fire.     He  would  have  said — let  us  know  all 


KEY.  DR.  ARTHUR  SWAZEY'S  OPINION. 


221 


we  can  know  of  the  public  sayings  of  this 
good  brother. 

He  would  not  have  tried  to  magnify  a 
word  of  doubt  expressed  long  ago  and  dis- 
covered to  be  unreasonable.  On  the  con- 
trary, he  would  have  taken  satisfaction  in 
any  new  light  which  might  have  been  de- 
rived from  the  experience  of  others  with 
Prof.  Swing. 

Still  further,  if  he  meant  kindly,  as  well 
as  honestly,  and  the  honesty  part  of  it  I  do 
not  call  into  question,  he  would  have  made 
explicit  charges,  instead  of  laying  a  trap  to 
catch  a  man  whom  he  believed  to  be  in  error, 
but  had  no  conviction  as  to  where  the  error 
lay. 

We  are  face  to  face  with  the  decision  of 
the  case.  We  have  listened  patiently  to  a 
long  array  of  charges.  We  have  given  the 
prosecutor  ample  time  to  spread  out  his  in- 
dividual theology ;  a  matter  entirely  irrele- 
vant to  the  decision  of  the  question.  We 
have  suffered  him  to  brow- beat  the  Court, 
and  to  insinuate  repeatedly  and  severely 
against  Prof.  Swing's  integrity,  without  re- 
proof ;  and  now  the  case,  unparalleled  in 
form,  substance  and  management,  approaches, 
I  hope,  its  conclusion. 

I  was  of  the  opinion  at  the  outset  that  we 
ought  to  quash  the  indictment  against  Prof. 
Swing.  This  opinion  was  independent  of 
any  question  of  the  defendant's  doctrinal 
soundness.  It  was  based  on  the  form  and 
nature  of  the  charges  and  specifications.  I 
find  no  fault  with  the  Judicial  Committee, 
however  ;  no  fault  with  the  Presbytery,  al- 
though I  think  its  duty  would  have  been  per- 
formed quite  as  well,  if  it  had  said  to  Prof. 
Patton :  We  will  hear  you  patiently  when 
you  name  some  capital  instance  of  departure 
from  our  standards,  but  not  before.  The  re- 
ceiving of  these  charges  is  one  of  those  in- 
stances in  which  men  fearing  to  do  wrong  in 
one  direction,  do  as  great  a  wrong  in  an- 
other. We  have  gained  a  reputation  for 
fairness  towards  a  prosecutor,  possibly  at  the 
expense  of  the  rights  of  the  accused,  and 
probably  at  a  loss  of  dignity  and  discrimina- 
tion on  the  part  of  the  Presbytery. 

I  make  a  very  mild  statement  of  my  con- 
viction when  I  say,  the  case  being  such  as  it 
is,  that  I  cannot  do  otherwise  than  give  my 
voice  for  the  complete  and  unqualified  acquit- 
tal of  the  defendant.  The  trial  has  not  only 
not  developed  anything  injurious,  in  my  es- 
timation, to  Prof.  Swing ;  on  the  contrary, 


it  has  given  me  a  stronger  idea  of  his  doc- 
trinal integrity,  so  far  as  we  are  permitted 
ecclesiastically  to  judge  one  another. 

It  has  been  so  often  affirmed  by  the  prose- 
cution and  others,  that  the  advocates  of  Prof. 
Swing's  loyalty  are  influenced  more  by  con- 
siderations of  friendship  than  conviction,  that 
I  take  this  opi)ortunity  to  call  attention  to  a 
remark  which  could  only  originate  among 
persons  themselves  accustomed  to  form  opin- 
ions from  a  partisan  stand-point,  and  to 
stigmatize  it  as  an  error  in  fact  as  well  as  in 
charity.  This  controversy  on  the  one  side, 
at  least,  is  only  a  defense,  including  an 
assertion  of  Presbyterial  rights  against  all 
assumption,  either  of  othodoxy  or  authority. 

There  may  be  prejudice  ;  but  if  so,  who  is 
answerable?  If  the  circumstances  in  which 
this  prosecution  was  begun,  the  attempt  to 
create  an  opinion  in  our  church  unfavorable 
to  Prof.  Swing  beforehand,  and  the  de- 
mand for  a  continuance  on  fictitious  grounds, 
and  a  resort  to  those  technical  complications, 
which  in  the  civil  court  are  signs  of  an  inde- 
fensible position,  if  these  circumstances 
prejudice  the  cause  against  the  prosecutor, 
the  rcspca.sibility  does  not  belong  to  the  ad- 
vocates for  an  acquittal.  I  think,  however, 
that  even  such  a  lawful  prejudice  will  not 
enter  into  my  judgment  of  the  merits  of  the 
case.  It  matters  not  to  me  by  whose  fault 
or  in  what  spirit  Prof.  Swing  is  brought  into 
Court. 

I  have,  however,  a  prejudice  which  I  will 
confess  ;  it  is  a  prejudice  in  favor  of  a  church 
at  once  orthodox  and  thoroughly  catholic ; 
at  once  sound  in  doctrine,  and  as  broad  as 
whatever  intelligence,  and  piety  and  beaut}', 
there  may  be  in  human  society.  I  love  the 
Presbyterian  church,  but  I  am  free  to  say, 
that,  if  it  should  insist  on  a  rigid  construc- 
tion of  its  confession  and  catechism,  or  on 
the  severer  form  of  Calvinistic  doctrine,  as 
necessary  to  the  good  faith  of  its  ministers  ;  or 
if  it  should  frown  habitually  on  wide-minded 
and  useful  men  who,  on  the  whole,  prefer  its 
doctrine  and  polity,  but  who  reserve  to  them- 
selves always  independence  of  thought  on 
science,  philosophy,  and  social  problems,  and 
religious  questions  as  well,  and  indeed  all 
that  pertains  to  culture  and  to  life,  my  love 
would  lessen  so  much  that  I  would  not  lift 
my  voice  for,  or  against,  any  of  its  decisions. 

If  I  understand  the  church,  in  which  the 
best  part  of  my  life  as  a  minister,  has  been 
spent,  it  is  in  genius  what  I  desire  it  to  be, 


222 


THE  TKIAL  OF  EEV.  DAVID  SWING, 


and  a  contradiction  to  the  idea  involved  in 
the  prosecution  of  this  case.  It  has  cost 
something  for  it  to  be  what  it  is.  And  now 
Prof.  Patton  comes  in  among  us,  and  we  are 
invited  to  disown  long  years  of  labor  for 
ecclesiastical  union,  and  to  dishonor  the 
prayers  and  the  tears  of  a  whole  generation 
seeking  and  at  last  finding  a  broad  ground 
of  recognition  and  of  labor  This  I  know 
is  denied.  This  trial,  it  is  said,  is  entered 
upon  for  the  maintenance  of  sound  doctrine. 
I  shall  not  doubt  the  right  of  anyone  to  take 
that  view  of  it.  But  I  regard  it  far  other- 
wise, viz  :  as  a  step  towards  a  return  to  the 
literalisms  of  the  confession  as  not  onlj'  true, 
but  in  some  sense,  as  the  sum  of  all  religious 
truth  ;  I  regard  it  indeed  as  a  war  between 
the  letter  and  the  spirit  of  all  the  reformed 
confessions.  The  position  of  our  church  is 
very  plain.  I  could  have  brought  witnesses 
on  the  stand,  had  I  thought  it  worth  the 
while,  to  prove  what  so  many  of  us  know, 
that  this  trial  is  part  of  a  plan  to  "purge  the 
church  of  its  more  liberal  element."  The 
numbers  in  sympathy  with  this  plan  are  not 
great.  They  call  in  question  however,  (and 
this  trial  is  the  instrumentality)  the  very 
generally  acknowledged  attitude  of  the  Pres- 
byterian household,  and  make  necessary 
what  in  other  circumstances  would  be  super- 
fluous, viz :  a  re-aflirmation  of  individual 
right  in  the  matter  both  of  interpreting  and 
handling  the  word  of  God.  Our  church  is 
not  the  rigid  minister  of  words,  but  the 
keeper  of  facts  and  ideas.  In  our  church  no 
man  can  be  an  offender  because  his  words 
are  similar  or  dissimilar  to  the  words  of 
others.  The  same  rule  applies  to  theories 
concerning  the  form  or  the  coloring  of  certain 
acknowledged  facts  or  doctrines.  Let  us  get 
the  outlook. 

In  the  adopting  act  of  1729  provision  was 
expressly  made  for  variation  in  style  or 
thought,  so  long  as  the  minister  "  declares 
his  agreement  in  opinion  with  all  the  essential 
articles  of  said  Confession."  (Gillett,  vol.  1, 
p.  56),  and  the  Synod  covenanted  as  follows  : 
"  And  the  Synod  do  solemnly  agree,  that 
none  of  us  will  traduce  or  use  any  opprobri- 
ous terms  of  those  that  differ  from  us  in  these 
extra  essential  and  not  necessary  points  of 
doctrine,  but  treat  them  with  the  same  friend- 
ship, kindness  and  brotherly  love,  as  if  they 
had  not  differed  from  us  in  such  sentiments. 
This,  I  remind  the  Presbytery,  is  the  char- 
ter of  the  Presbyterian  Church.     It  was  a 


charter  of  liberty  in  the  use  of  written  sym- 
bols, and  as  such  was  so  displeasing  that  a 
considerable  number  "  left  the  Presbyterian 
Church  and  joined  the  seceders."  The  prin- 
ciples of  this  charter  have  been  iterated  time 
and  again. 

The  historian  of  the  Cumberland  Presby- 
terians tells  us  that  "  it  had  been  the  prac- 
tice of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  North 
Carolina  to  ordain  men  to  the  ministry  who 
adopted  the  Confession  with  the  exception  of 
the  idea  of  fataiity  taught  therein.  The 
Transylvania  Presbytery,  in  whose  bounds 
the  revival  of  1800  took  place,' had  adopted 
the  same  plan,  and  permitted  ministers  in 
their  ordination  vows  to  take  the  same  ex- 
ception if  they  chose  to  do  so.  And  it  was 
worthy  of  notice  also  that  most  of  the  minis- 
ters who  promoted  the  revival  were  men  who 
made  this  exception  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church.  (Crisman  quoted  by 
Gillett,  vol.  2,  p.  178.) 

Something  of  the  genius  of  the  Presbyter- 
ian Church  is  seen  in  the  letter  of  the  As- 
sembly of  1807  to  the  Synod  of  Kentucky  in 
review  of  its  treatment  of  the  Cumberland 
Presbytery.  The  Assembly  says :  "Without 
implying  that  the  demands  of  our  standards 
should  be  regarded  otherwise  than  inviolable 
and  indispensable,  yet  there  must  be  supposed 
the  right  and  duty  of  exercising  a  sound  dis- 
cretion, which  will  consult  the  spirit  as  well 
as  the  letter  of  the  law  ;  which  will  some- 
times forbid  the  exercise  of  legitimate  power; 
and  which  will  endeavor  with  equal  caution 
to  avoid  the  extremes  of  vigor  and  laxness, 
which  will  yield  something,  yet  not  concede 
everything  to  circumstances  ;  which,  in  a 
word,  will  recollect  that  power  is  given  for 
edification  and  not  for  destruction,  and  en- 
deavor to  be  guided  by  this  rule."  (Idem, 
p.  187.)  In  other  words,  the  Presbyterian 
Church  should  be  no  Procrustian  bed. 

This  indictment  would  change  the  Ameri- 
can Church,  with  its  grand  history  of  inde- 
pendent thought  and  investigation,  into  a 
school  of  debate  about  words,  unless  some 
real,  specific,  and  capital  heresy  be  charged. 
What  is  the  case  before  us  ?  I  have  already 
analyzed  this  singular  instrument  sufSciently 
to  show  how  irregular  and  deficient  it  is  as  a 
whole,  and  how  frivolous  even  some  of  the 
specifications  are.  I  add  at  this  time  only  a 
word  by  way  of  illustration. 

In  specification  six,  Prof.  Swing  is  charged 
with  declaring  that  the  value  of  ajioctrine 


EEV.  DK.  AETHUR  SWAZEY'S  OPINION. 


223 


is  measured  by  the  ability  of  men  to  verify 
it  in  their  experience.     That  specification  is 
without  pertinence,  and  indeed  is  an  invasion 
of  the  rights  of   individual  opinion   on  the 
sources  and  methods  of  Christian  knowledge, 
a  matter  on  which  no  church  that  I  know  of 
has  ever  made  a  deliverance.     The  charge 
that  Prof.  Swing  adopts  the  theory  of  "evo- 
lution  or   development"  is   entirely   irrele- 
vant.    As  a  matter  of  fact,  he  does  not  adopt 
that  theory,  but  if  ho  did,  this  body  has  no 
jurisdiction  over   opinions   on    questions   of 
science.     And  if  it  had  jurisdiction,  I  sug- 
gest,   without    meaning    disrespect   to    the 
brethren,  that  this  Presbytery  is  not  compe- 
tent to  say  what  scientific  theory  is  or  is  not 
consistent  with  the  word  of  God.     It  is  ex- 
tremely  unfortunate   when   astronomies   or 
cosmogonies  are  regarded  as  elements  in  the 
orthodox  faith.     This  Presbj-tery  and  every 
judicatory  of  the  church   should  frown  upon 
all  attempts  to  increase  rather  than  to  lessen 
the  number   of  articles   of  belief  on   which 
men,  if  they  be  at  the  same  time  thinking 
men,    and   honest,   must   necessarily   differ. 
The  same  substantially  may  be  said  of  the 
attempt  to  determine  judicially  the  obscure 
and  symbolical  portions  of  the  Bible.    There 
is  room   for,  and  in   fact   there  are  diverse 
opinions  among  confessedly  sound  men  on 
the  exact  meaning  of  the   New   Testament 
offerings.     And  as  to  the  Apocalypse,   there 
never  has  been,  and   there   probably   never 
will  be  in  our  time,  an   agreement   among 
biblical  scholars  on  the  question  of  interpre- 
tation.    For  Prof.   Patton,  therefore,  to  ar- 
raign Prof.  Swing   for   certain  opinions  on 
these  matters,  indicates  that  he,  himself,  is  not 
in  harmony  with  the  scholarship  of  the  age, 
at  least  to  the  degree  that  he  appreciates  the 
difficulties   of   great  biblical   questions,  and 
the  infinite  mischief  of  an  attempt  to  create 
an  ecclesiastical  opinion.     For  our  own  part, 
we  are  amazed  at  the  audacity  which  pro- 
poses a  judicial  review  of  the  broad  field  on 
"Which  men  holding  the  evangelical  doctrines 
are  compelled  to  differ.     This  course  would 
in  the  end  divide  the  orthodox  church   into 
innumerable    denominations     distinguished 
by  their  views  of  unessential  matters — as  for 
example  the  meaning  of  the  "seven  vials," 
or  the  "seven  candlesticks,"  or  the  measure 
of  Ezekiel's  wheel. 

To  admit  that  certain  of  these  specifica- 
tions, charge  what  is  really  an  "offense" 
would  make  sad  work  in  the  Presbyterian 


household.  It  would  be  not  so  much  to 
require  assent  to  the  ipsissima  verba  of  the 
confession,  as  to  add  to  the  number  of  articles 
which  the  church  ought  to  enforce.  It  would 
be  the  re-attempt  to  create  a  presbyterian 
bible,  not  unlike  that  once  proposed  by  an 
eminent  divine.  To  admit  the  validity  of 
this  indictment  would  be  to  propose,  for 
assent  thereto  for  all  ministers,  an  article  on 
the  Damnation  of  the  Virtuous  Heathen  ;  an 
article  on  the  Nature  of  Inspiration ;  an 
article  on  the  theory  of  Prophetic  Interpre- 
tation ;  an  article  on  Non-sympathy  with 
Non-believers  ;  an  article  of  Protest  against 
Huxley  and  Darwin  ;  an  article  on  the 
Methods  of  Evangelical  Evidence,  (discrim- 
inating against  the  internal  and  in  favor  of 
the  external  supports  of  bible  truth) ;  an 
article  on  the  Divine  Call  to  the  Ministry, 
to  supplement  the  article  on  its  divine 
authority;  an  article  on  the  Superior  Culture 
and  Experience  of  Adam,  to  supplement  that 
on  the  creation  of  man  in  "  knowledge, 
righteousness  and  holiness,  with  dominion 
over  the  creatures;"  and  many  other  articles 
which  time  does  not  allow  me  to  mention. 
Can  this  court  think  for  a  moment  of  allow- 
ing a  minister  to  be  convicted  on  such  spec- 
ifications as  Prof.  Patton  has  brought  in 
here? 

In  handling  the  charges  relating  to  equi- 
vocal language,  the  prosecutor  has,  I  am 
sorry  to  say,  insinuated  an  intentional  am- 
biguity on  the  part  of  Prof.  Swing.  He  has 
intimated  that  he  has  been  steering  between 
Scylla  and  Charybdis  with  all  the  careful- 
ness of  an  accomplished  navigator  ;  in  other 
words,  meaning  to  use  double  dealing  with 
his  hearers  and  with  the  gospel  of  God. 
These  insinuations  have  been  covert,  but 
never  the  less  real.  In  my  judgment  they 
ought  to  be  repelled  with  indignation.  No 
man  should  insinuate  what  he  does  not 
charge.  That  the  prosecutor  has  done  so  is 
one  of  the  reasons  for  the  opinion  I  have 
reached  as  to  the  animus  of  all  these  pro- 
ceedings. 

It  is  easy  to  find  reasons  why  Professor 
Swing  is  sometimes  misunderstood,  which  re- 
flect no  dishonor  upon  him. 

First,  interested  parties  garbling  his  dis- 
courses, culling  words  and  phrases  which, 
standing  by  themselves,  have  an  unorthodox 
look,  and  commenting  unfavorably  upon 
them,  and  sending  them  all  over  the  country, 
has  had  not  a  little  to  do  with  the  misappre« 


224 


THE  TEIAL  OF  KEV.  DAVID  SWING. 


hension,  so  far  as  it  is  in  any  sense  general. 
Some  of  this  work  has  heen  done  honestly,  I 
doubt  not;  some  of  it  has  been  done  shame- 
lessly. 

Secondly,  ministers  and  laymen  in  unevan- 
gelical  churches  have  long  been  in  the  habit 
of  seizing  upon,  and  making  the  most  of 
words  and  sentiments  falling  from  the  lips  of 
evangelical  men,  which  could  be  construed 
in  their  own  favor,  and  as  a  sign  of  decay  in 
orthodox  Christianity.  They  have  not  failed 
to  do  so  in  this  instance. 

Thirdly,  there  are  certain  orthodox  people, 
who  are  not  satisfied  with  the  ordinary  col- 
oring and  relative  proportions  of  evangelical 
doctrines.  They  have  been  taught,  however, 
that  what  they  hear  from  the  pulpit,  in  col- 
oring and  proportions,  as  well  as  in  fact,  is 
the  only  orthodox  faith.  When,  therefore, 
any  man  begins  his  variations  on  the  vast 
compass  and  stretch  of  evangelical  truth, 
they  are  delighted  and  somewhat  surprised, 
and  go  about  saying,  naturally  enough  con- 
sidering their  order  of  mind,  that  this  is 
something  different  from  the  old  theology. 
It  is  different  in  coloring,  but  not  in  ana- 
tomy ;  but  they  do  not  make  the  discrimina- 
tion until  they  have  had  some  experience  in 
the  fresher  and  wider  forms  of  divine  truth. 
Then  they  find  the  same  old  gospel  made 
fresh  and  young  again. 

It  is  to  be  observed  that  articles  of  religion, 
word-forms,  are  not  identical  with  theology. 
They  may  change  and  substantive  theology 
not  be  changed  at  all.  But  when  they  do 
change  there  is  almost  always  misapprehen- 
sion. For  example,  when  the  controversy 
touching  the  word-form  of  certain  articles 
in  our  Confession  arose  about  forty  years 
ago,  there  was  a  vast  deal  of  misrepresenta- 
tion, a  part  of  it  growing  out  of  honest  mis- 
understanding. 

The  General  Assembly  of  1837  charged 
upon  the  four  synods  serious  doctrinal  de- 
partures. The  comparison  of  those  charges 
and  the  answer,  which  answer  now  by  con- 
sent forms  a  part  of  the  intrepretations  of 
our  standards,  illustrates  this  point. 

One  error  charged  was  this:  "That  we 
have  no  more  to  do  with  the  first  sin  of 
Adam  than  with  the  sins  of  any  other 
parent."  The  doctrine  actually  held,  and  so 
expressed  by  the  accused  was  as  follows: 
*'By  a  divine  constitution,  Adam  was  so  the 
head  and  representative  of  the  race,  that  as 
a  consequence  of  his  transgression,  all  man- 


kind became  morally  corrupt  and  liable  to 
death,  temporal  and  eternal." 

Another  error  charged  was:  "That infants 
sustained  the  same  relation  to  the  moral 
government  of  God  in  this  world  as  brute 
animals,  and  their  suffering  and  death  are 
to  be  accounted  for  on  the  same  principles  as 
those  of  brutes,  and  not  by  any  means  to  be 
considered  as  penal."  The  answer  was: 
"Brute  animals  sustain  no  such  relation  to 
the  moral  government  of  God,  as  does  the 
human  family.  Infants  are  a  part  of  the 
human  family,  and  their  sufferings  and 
death  are  to  be  accounted  for  on  the  ground 
of  their  being  involved  in  the  general  moral 
ruin  of  the  race  induced  by  the  apostacy." 

Another  error  charged  was,  "That  the 
sufferings  and  death  of  Christ  were  not  truly 
vicarious  and  penal,  but  symbolical,  govern- 
mental and  instructive  only."  The  answer 
was  :  "The  sufferings  and  death  of  Christ 
are  not  symbolical,  governmental,  and  in- 
structive only,  but  were  truly  vicarious — 
that  is  a  substitute  for  the  punishment  due 
to  transgressors." 

Now  what  was  the  difficulty  ?  Men  were 
supposed  to  teach  what  they  did  not  teach. 
It  took  something  of  time  and  patience  to 
settle  the  dispute.  It  is  just  this  and  nothing 
more.  Certain  men  had  become  dissatisfied 
with  stereotyped  methods  of  presenting  the 
doctrine  of  sin,  man's  ability  and  disability 
under  the  law'  of  God,  and  redemption  by 
Jesus  Christ. 

The  moment  they  began  to  use  new  phrase- 
ology, they  were  put  under  suspicion  as 
secret  enemies  of  the  church.  The  issue  we 
all  know.  It  is  the  most  natural  thing  in 
the  world,  that  Prof.  Swing's  free  use  of 
phraseologies  a  little  fresher  than  the  hack- 
neyed terms  of  the  seminary  and  the  pulpit, 
should  meet  with  a  challenge  from  anybody, 
professor,  minister  or  laj^man,  whose  para- 
mount idea  of  a  church  is  not  a  certain  sys- 
tem, but  a  certain  type  of  theology.  For 
myself,  as  a  member  of  a  Court  of  the  Pres- 
byterian church,  which  is  at  the  same  time 
called  in  our  book  "  a  court  of  Jesus  Christ," 
I  must  pause  when  I  am  called  upon  to  cen- 
sure Prof.  Swing  because  his  language  is 
thought  by  some  to  indicate  a  departure  from 
the  truth.  I  remember  that  Augustine  was 
understood  differently  by  different  parties, 
and  was  stigmatized  by  some  of  the  African 
bishops  as  a  Latinizer.  I  remember  that 
John  of   Antioch,   and  afterwards  of  Con- 


EEV.  DE.  AETHUK  SWAZEY'S  OPINION". 


225 


stantinople,  was  accused  of  sailing  away  on 
the  wings  of  his  eloquence  towards  the  errors 
of  Origen,  and  was  often  stigmatized  as  a 
pestilent  schismatic,  and  partly  because  his 
preaching  attracted  Jews,  heathen,  and  her- 
etics. I  remember,  also,  what  is  not  mal 
apropos  to  this  occasion,  that  his  trouble  was 
caused  partly  by  the  imperial  Eudoxia,  a 
kind  of  prototype  of  Catherine  II,  who 
coaxed  and  threatened,  but  who  could  not 
silence  the  voice  which  was  always  declaring 
orthodoxy  without  obedience  to  be  a  snare  of 
the  devil.  I  bear  in  mind  that  Augustine 
aud  Chrysostom  are  in  pretty  good  standing 
to-day  as  orthodox  divines.  I  remember 
that  the  history  of  the  church  is  full  of  such 
instances  and  I  pause  before  venturing  to 
blame  Prof.  Swing  for  words  or  phrases 
which,  either  by  good  or  ill  intent,  may  be 
misinterpreted  as  against  the  theology 
which  he  affirms,  or  as  misleading  to  the 
minds  of  his  hearers.  It  may  be  that  they 
are  leading  these  hearers  into  a  profound 
knowledge  of  that  glorious  scheme  of  theol- 
ogy which  gives  all  its  worth  and  character 
to  our  confession  of  faith. 

There  is  a  reason  why  Prof.  Swing  should 
"be  misunderstood  in  the  palpable  aim  of  his 
preaching — an  aim  not  originating  with  him, 
and  one  which  would  not  be  lost  if  his  valu- 
able life  were  to  come  to  a  close — an  aim 
shared  by  many  ministers  and  laymen  of  no 
mean  attainments — men  whose  love  for  the 
Church  no  sane  man  can  call  into  question. 
This  aim  (I  speak  simply  by  my  own  obser- 
vation) is  to  assert  for  our  system  of  faith  the 
catholicity  and  universality  for  which  the 
great  mass  of  Christian  people  are  yearning 
to-day.  It  is  not  to  devitalize  Christianity, 
nor  to  put  it  on  a  level  with  other  religions, 
nor  to  make  it  merely  first  among  all.  It  is 
not  to  Unitarianize  or  rationalize  evangeli- 
cal Christianity.  It  is  not  to  affirm  Armin- 
ianism,  nor  to  destroy  the  doctrine  of  justifi- 
cation by  faith,  nor  to  bring  into  disrepute 
the  standards  of  any  church,  and  least  of  all 
those  of  the  Presbyterian  Church.  But  the 
aim  is,  holding  fast  to  the  great  fundamental 
ideas  of  religion,  including  those  which  are 
commonly  called  Calvinistic,  and  because 
they  hold  to  them,  to  bring  moral  ideas  into 
greater  distinctness,  and  to  subsidize,  as  the 
Lord  promised  he  would  subsidize,  everything 
in  the  world  to  his  kingdom  and  glory. 

Prof.  Swing  is  not  a  rigid  Presbyterian. 
He  is,  however,  evangelical  in  his  doctrine. 


and  sufficiently  Presbyterian  in  polity.  He 
would  not  thank  any  of  us  to  represent  him 
as  a  denominationalist,  or  a  high  Calvinist. 
His  modes  of  expression  are  his  own.  His 
doctrine,  as  I  think,  is  within  the  limits  of 
our  standards.  He  is,  unless  we  are  greatly 
deceived,  which  I  will  not  for  a  moment  al- 
low, an  earnest  minister  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, a  sui  generis  and  able  preacher  of  the 
gospel,  delivering  more  men  from  the  skepti- 
cism and  unbelief  of  the  times  than  any  minis- 
ter in  this  Presbytery.  Have  we  not  room 
enough  for  him  in  our  standards,  interpreted 
by  the  deliverances  and  usages  of  the  Church, 
as  well  as  room  for  him  in  our  hearts  ?  The 
past  warrants  us  in  not  requiring  the  ipsissi- 
ma  verba  of  the  standards.  The  Auburn 
Declaration  is  a  monument  of  revolt  against 
rigid  construction,  successful  and  acknowl- 
edged, and  like  all  such  revolts  changes  the 
character  of  the  document  which  it  neither 
repeals  nor  supersedes.  I  have  not  time  to 
review  the  Confession  of  Faith  in  its  rela- 
tion to  the  vast  stores  of  the  New  Testament. 
One  may  assent  to,  and  strongly  affirm  and 
defend,  the  system  of  doctrine  contained  in 
our  standards,  and  not  think  for  a  moment 
of  restricting  his  theology  to  the  limits  of 
these  venerable  symbols.  God's  order  of 
things  is  not  so  poor — the  Presbyterian 
Church  is  not  so  poor  as  some  theologians 
dream.  I  affirm  the  confession  of  faith  to 
be  the  mere  alphabet,  the  letter-skeleton  of  a 
true  and  comprehensive  theology,  and  that, 
true  as  that  confession  of  faith  itself  is,  it 
misleads  uneducated  minds  where  it  is  pro- 
pounded as  the  sum  of  religious  doctrine,  or 
as  a  complete  exponent  of  the  kingdom  of 
heaven.  It  is  the  truth  of  a  grain  of  sand 
on  a  vast  .continent  of  thought. 

Passing  by  much  that  ought  to  be  said,  and 
that  I  would  like  to  say,  were  there  not  so 
many  to  speak  after  me,  I  bring  my  remarks 
to  a  close  with  a  single  word. 

Professor  Swing  has  lived  among  us  for 
many  years.  We  know  his  abundant  works, 
his  strict  honesty  and  the  place  he  holds  in 
the  hearts  of  a  great  company  of  believers  in 
all  our  churches.  We  have  no  fault  to  find 
with  him,  only  such  as  we  find  with  each  other 
in  the  ministration  of  the  word  of  life.  A 
stranger  comes  in  here,  and  for  reasons  that 
are  largely  partizan,  invites  us  to  denounce 
him  as  a  heretic,  or  to  send  him  back  to  his 
pulpit  as  a  trickster  with  words,  a,  venal  and 
pitiable  trifler  with  divine  revelation  and  the. 


226 


THE  TKIAL  OF  KEV.  DAVID  SWING. 


spiritual  welfare  of  his  people,  or  load  him 
with  some  more  mild  and  meaner  damna- 
tion. I  will  not  trust  myself  to  fix  the  epi- 
thets upon  this  whole  transaction,  which 
justice,  moderated  even  by  manifold  consid- 
erations, might  require.  There  seems,  to 
some,  to  be  moral  heroism  in  this  prosecution. 
As  I  have  intimated,  I  do  not  regard  it  in 
that  light.  "We  shall  acquit  Prof.  Swing,  and 
the  torch  which  theological  fanaticism  has 
flung  into  the  Ephesian  dome  will  need  to 
be  kindled  again  before  the  temple  is  in 
flames. 

At  this  point,  the  Presbytery  took  a  recess 
until  2  o'clock  P.  M. 


2  o'clock  p.  m. 

Eev.  R.  K.  Wharton  asked  and  obtained 
leave  of  absence  in  order  to  attend  the  fune- 
ral of  one  of  the  elders  of  his  church.  He 
was  allowed  to  deposit  his  sealed  vote  on  the 
charges  and  specifications  with  the  Stated 
Clerk,  to  be  recorded  when  his  name  shall 
be  called  on  the  roll. 

The  expression  of  opinion  was  continued 
as  follows  : 

OPINION  OF  KEV.  W.  C.   YOUNG. 

Mr.  Moderator,  I  feel  that  we  are  all  to- 
day, even  the  humblest  among  us,  making 
history  here.  I  feel  that  we  are  furnishing 
material  here  for  a  page  in  that  great  volume 
which  chronicles  the  life  and  the  history,  the 
weaknesses  and  the  heroism  of  that  grand 
branch  of  God's  kingdom  to  which  we  be- 
long. I  can  conceive  of  no  circumstances 
more  impressive,  more  weighty  and  more 
responsible  than  those  which  surround  this 
Presbytery  at  this  time.  There  is  not  one 
single  element,  that  I  can  conceive  of,  that  is 
wanting  to  heighten  its  impressiveness  and 
its  solemnity.  The  case  before  us  is  the  trial 
of  a  brother  Presbyter.  We  are,  as  the 
prosecutor  well  said  in  the  beginning,  we  are 
here  members  of  a  common  family,  impan- 
nelled  to  sit  in  judgment  upon  one  of  the 
best  loved  and  most  honored  members  of  this 
family.  We  are  conscious  that  the  gaze — 
the  watchful,  prayerful  gaze — of  our  whole 
Church  in  this  land  and  of  multitudes  outside 
of  the  borders  of  our  Church — is  fixed  in 
suspense  upon  our  proceedings.  We  have 
listened  to  the  threat,  or  rather  the  warn- 
ning,  with  which  a  gentleman  closed  yester- 
day afternoon  with  regard  to  the  division 
and  disintegration,  and   splitting   to   pieces 


again,  of  this  great  Presbyterial  family.  We 
know  that  for  our  proceedings  this  day  we 
are  to  give  answer  at  the  bar  of  an  enlight- 
ened. Christian  public  opinion,  and  above 
all,  we  are  to  answer  at  the  bar  of  the  common 
Master  of  us  all. 

I  can  truly  say,  sir,  that  I  have  never 
come  forward  to  the  performance  of  any  duty, 
in  my  whole  life,  with  a  more  solemn  sense 
of  my  responsibility  to  God,  with  a  more 
anxious  and  a  more  troubled  soul,  with  a 
more  earnest  desire,  upon  the  one  hand,  of 
doing  full  justice,  and  extending  the  broadest 
charity  to  my  brother,  who  is  accused  ;  yet 
on  the  other,  with  the  desire  of  maintaining 
my  fealty  to  my  ordination  vow,  and  of 
doing  that  which  will  meet  the  approval  of 
my  Master  above. 

I  tried,  sir — God  knows  sincerely — in  the 
beginning  of  these  proceedings  to  lay  aside 
every  preconceived  opinion,  every  doubt, 
every  judgment  that  I  might  have  formed 
with  regard  to  this  case.  I  know  that 
throughout  these  whole  proceedings,  I  have 
given  it  the  most  attentive  and  the  m»st 
earnest  consideration ;  that  my  hope  has 
been  day  after  day,  and  hour  after  hour,  that 
I  might  hear  something,  that  I  might  ob- 
tain some  light  that  would  serve  to  remove 
the  doubts,  and  to  change  the  judgment 
which  a  study  of  the  evidence  that  is  printed 
in  this  case  had  raised,  and  had  formed  in 
my  "mind.  It  is  with  the  profoundest  sorrow 
that  I  say,  in  the  presence  of  you,  my  breth- 
ren, that  that  hope  has  not  been  realized  ; 
and  that,  as  I  expect  to  answer  to  God  and 
my  conscience,  with  my  best  convictions  of 
duty  on  this  subject,  1  am  constrained  to 
say,  that  the  preached  and  published  utter- 
ances of  Prof.  Swing,  in  my  judgment,  have 
not  been  consistent  with  his  position  as  a 
minister  in  the  Presbyterian  church,  or  in 
accord  with  the  doctrines  of  that  church,  as 
they  are  formulated  and  have  been  adopted 
in  our  Confession  of  Faith. 

Now  I  wish  to  add  one  word  upon  a  sub- 
ject that  has  been  discussed  at  great  length 
before  this  body  already,  and  that  is,  in  re- 
gard to  the  standard  by  which  we  are  to 
form  our  judgment  upon  this  subject.  And 
I  beg  leave  humbly,  and  yet  very  positively, 
to  enter  my  dissent  from  the  view  that  was 
expressed  by  an  honored  and  venerable 
brother  Presbyter  on  yesterday  afternoon, 
which  was  in  substance  and  efi'ect  that  the 
platform,   upon   which    these  two  branches 


REV.  A.  H.  DEAN'S  OPINION. 


of  our  church  came  together,  is  broad  enough, 
and  long  enough  for  Prof.  Swing,  with  his 
public  utterances,  consistently  to  stand  upon. 
Now  I  wish  to  read  a  single  line,  or  a  line 
and  a  half,  from  the  plea  that  was  entered 
before  this  Presbytery  by  the  respondent  in 
this  case,  and  I  ask  this  Presbytery  if,  in 
their  judgment,  the  platform  adopted  as  the 
basis  of  our  Eeunion  is  broad   enough   and 
long  enough  to  cover  such  views  as  these. 
"  I  have,  therefore,  at  many  times  declared 
our  denomination  to  be  simply  a  church  of 
the  common  evangelical  doctrines."     It  was 
my  good  or  bad  fortune,  Mr.  Moderator,  to 
belong,  when  I  entered   the  ministry,  to  a 
synod  that  was  one  of  the  last  to  give  in  its 
adhesion  to  the  basis  of  reunion.     One  of  the 
members — the  most  prominent   member   of 
that  synod,  was  Dr.  Eobert  Breckenridge — 
a  man,  as  we  all  know,  of  the  strongest  preju- 
dices against  the  New  School  Church,  who 
had  probably  done  as  much  as  any  man  in 
the  church  to  produce  the  division  of  1838. 
Upon    the  floor  of    the  Presbytery,  and   in 
synod,  and  in  the  General  Assembly;  I  heard 
him  argue  and  declaim  and  exhort  against 
this    Reunion;    and   in    doing    so,    he    pre- 
sented— as    he   among  few  had    the    power 
of  doing— what  he  considered  the  defections 
aud  short-comings  of  the  New  School  branch 
of  the  Church.     And  yet,  never  did  I  hear 
him  in  all  his  utterances,  while  opposing  the 
union  of  the  two  branches  of  the  Church, 
which  he  deemed  so  fraught  with  evil  and 
disaster,  proclaim,   or  assert  that   the   New 
School  Branch  of  the  Church  would  be  will- 
ing  to  accept,  as  a  fair  exponent   of   their 
views,  a  man  who  stated  that  it  was  simply 
a   church   of  the   common  evangelical   doc- 
trines.    That  is  an  implied  statement,  and  it 
is   an   asserted    statement   that   our    church 
goes  nothing  beyond  ;  that  it  holds  nothing 
further;  that  its  ministers  are  not  required 
to  hold  anything  further   than  just  the  com- 
mon  evangelical   doctrines   of    the    general 
Christian  Churches. 

Now,  one  word  with  regard  to  the  reasons 
for  my  vote,  so  far  as  they  have  not  been 
given  in  what  I  have  already  said.  There 
are  two  questions,  it  seems  to  me,  that  are 
presented  to  us  in  these  charges,  and  one  of 
them  is,  so  to  speak,  a  matter  of  fact,  and 
the  other,  a  matter  of  opinion.  The  first 
charge  concerns  the  published  utterances— 
the  import  of  the  character  of  the  published 
utterances  of  the  accused ;  and   I   am   con- 


227 

strained  to  say,  that  with  as  careful  and  ear- 
nest study  as  I  have  been  able  to  give  them, 
they  are  not,  to  my  mind,  in  keeping  with 
the  doctrines  of  the  Presbyterian  church, 
and  that  the  fair  impression,  gathered  from 
many  of  those  utterances,  is  not  only  in 
the  face  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Presbyterian 
church,  but  to  my  view,  they  come  in  con- 
flict with  the  common  evangelical  doctrines, 
as  they  are  held  by  all  of  the  evangelical 
churches. 

Now,  with  regard  to  the  second  charge,  I 
do  not  believe,  as  was  charged  in  the  paper 
read  on  yesterday  afternoon,  that  there  is 
no  method  of  voting  for  this  second  charge 
without  impugning  the  veracity  of  Professor 
Swing.  I  wish  it  to  be  expressly  understood 
that  I  do  not  impugn  his  veracity,  but  I  do 
impugn  his  opinion  and  judgment.  He  says, 
in  this  plea,  that  he  is  a  Presbyterian— a 
New  School  Presbyterian— and  then  he  goes 
on  to  say  what  he  believes  that  to  be,  in  the 
statement  I  have  just  read — that  is,  that  our 
church — the  New  School  Presbyterian  the- 
ology, to  which  he  has  just  given  his  adhe- 
sion—is simply  a  church  of  the  common  ev- 
angelical doctrine.  It  seems  to  me  that 
that  statement  qualifies  the  statement  he  has 
before  made,  and  that  he  makes  just  after ; 
and  therefore,  I  can  consistently,  it  appears 
to  me,  vote  to  sustain  the  second  Charge; 
not  as  impugning  his  veracity,  or  his  hon- 
esty, but  that  his  own  statements  in  this  plea 
are  contradictory,  the  one  of  the  other.  In 
the  one  of  these  statements  the  respondent, 
according  to  my  view,  discards  the  whole 
system  peculiar  to  the  Presbyterian  church, 
as  it  is  incorporated  and  formulated  in  our 
Confession  of  Faith. 

OPINION  OF  REV.  A.  H.  DEAN. 

I  have  only  one  point,  or  two  points,  Mr. 
Moderator,  which  I  wish  to  speak  of,  in  ex- 
plaining my  vote.  The  first  is  that,  in  voting 
not  to  sustain  the  charge  of  unfaithfulness, 
or  of  not  sincerely  receiving  the  Confession 
of  Faith,  by  so  doing  I  do  not  commend 
Prof.  Swing's  peculiar  course,  or  tread  in 
the  same  steps.  I  wish  he  were  more  pro- 
nounced. Let  that  suffice  for  my  explana- 
tion of  that  part  of  it.  For  the  second,  I 
cannot  tear  each  specification  apart  from  its 
charge.  I  shall  vote  for  each  specification  as 
it  bears  upon  the  charge  under  which  it  is 
placed.  The  rest  of  my  time  I  put  at  the 
disposal  of  Elder  Barber. 


228 


THE  TEIAL  OP  KEV.     DAVID  SWING. 


OPINION  OF  REV.  J.  M.  FAEIS. 

I  hesitate  to  speak  in  this  case,  although  I 
suppose  I  might  feel  it  my  duty  to  do  so.  I 
hesitate,  chiefly  because  I  do  not  wish  to 
consume  the  time  of  the  Presbytery.  It 
would  be  wiser  for  me  to  give  my  time  to 
some  brother  who  will  come  after.  But  as 
you  have  called  my  name,  and  I  have  a 
reason  to  present,  I  will  Improve  the  oppor- 
tunity. 

I  must  say  that,  after  hearing  patiently 
every  word  of  the  evidence,  and  every  word, 
save  about  ten  minutes,  of  the  pleading  on 
both  sides — every  word  of  the  pleadings,  in- 
deed— my  mind  is  fully  made  up  that  the 
charges  are  sustained.  My  views  on  the  sev- 
eral specifications  will  be  developed  as  they 
are  called.  I  may,  and  I  may  not,  vote 
"sustained"  to  all  of  them,  according  to  the 
light  that  will  be  thrown  upon  them. 

Now,  while  I  am  uttering  myself  as  to  the 
opinion  I  have  formed,  allow  me  to  express 
my  regrets  that  the  issue  between  the  New 
and  the  Old  School,  as  they  once  were,  has 
been  lugged  in,  and  to  say  that  it  was  unfor- 
tunate and  unkind  to  lug  it  in.  It  was  pro- 
tested against  by  the  prosecutor.  If,  then,  it 
is  persistently  placed  before  this  Court,  and 
placed  before  the  outside  world  and  the 
Church  at  large,  as  an  issue  involved  here, 
let  the  blame  rest  where  it  belongs.  I  do 
not  vote  upon  any  question  that  was  at  issue 
between  the  New  and  Old  Schools.  I  con- 
fess I  was  an  Old  School  man,  and  always 
hope  to  be  so ;  but  that  has  nothing  to  do 
with  this.  The  simple  question  here  is  this: 
has  the  accused  person  been  decided  in  ful- 
filling his  engagement  according  to  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith  and  the  Word  of  God? 
Now,  when  you  come  to  scrutinize  the  Word 
of  God  in  various  parts  of  it — not  as  much 
as  you  can  crowd  or  spread  upon  half  a  page 
of  note  paper,  as  was  alleged  yesterday,  but 
as  much  as  you  can  crowd  into  a  page  of 
foolscap — you  will  find  more  severity  and 
more  terrific  terms  than  you  can  find  in  ten 
confessions  of  this  kind.  Let  any  man  take 
the  IX  chapter  of  Romans,  and  the  various  ut- 
terances of  our  Lord  himself,  and  tell  me  if 
it  is  presumption  in  a  preacher  to  talk  about 
perdition,  damnation,  and  hell,  when  he  talks 
in  accordance  with  the  utterances  of  the  Bi- 
ble. Keep  away  from  the  Old  Testament,  if 
you  will,  and  confine  yourself  to  the  New 
Testament ;  severity,  terror,  and  love  of  God 


are  the  motives.  The  blessed  Apostle  does 
not  say  all  Christians  are  constrained  by  the 
love  of  Christ,  but  he  says,  in  regard  to  the 
unconverted  :  "  Knowing,  therefore,  the  ter- 
ror of  the  Lord,  we  persuade  men."  It  is 
pre-eminently  scriptural  to  use  terrific  sug- 
gestions in  endeavoring  to  win  souls  to  Christ. 

Another  suggestion  :  it  was  alleged  yester- 
day, that  the  reason  for  the  peculiar  type  of 
these  sermons  in  McVicker's  theatre  was 
that  they  were  addressed  to  a  peculiar  class 
of  people.  Mr.  Moderator,  I  want  to  know 
whether  any  man  has  a  right  to  go  outside  of 
his  commission — as  Wellington  once  said  of 
a  captious  preacher — for  anybody  ? 

Another  question:  does  a  departure  from 
a  man's  commission  succeed  in  winning  souls 
to  Christ  ?  No.  Does  it  not  confirm  them 
in  their  contempt  for  religion  ? 

That  is  all  I  have  to  say.  Any  balance  of 
my  time,  I  will  give  to  Brother  Ely. 

OPINION   OF   REV.    DR.    W.    M.     BLACKBURN. 

Mr.  Moderator : — What  little  I  have  to 
say,  I  will  put  in  as  few  words  as  possible. 

The  main  question,  sir,  is:  have  the 
Charges  preferred  against  the  Rev.  David 
Swing  been  proven?  The  question  is  not 
whether  we  sustain  or  endorse  the  whole 
course  of  the  accused ;  it  is  not  as  to  what 
Prof.  Swing  may  yet  become,  or  may  yet 
believe ;  or  whither  he  may  yet  drift — if  he 
drift  at  all.  It  is  not  whether  our  standards 
teach,  or  do  not  teach,  infant  damnation.  It 
is  not  whether  there  is  a  difference  between 
historic  and  actual  Presbyterianism.  It  is 
not — who  are  and  how  many — a- man's  friends 
may  be  after  he  has  voted  in  this  case.  It  is 
not,  what  will  happen  to  the  Church,  what- 
ever the  issue  of  this  case  may  be.  It  is 
nothing  else  than  this:  have  the  Charges 
been  proven  ? 

Now,  in  forming  my  judgment,  I  have  en- 
deavored to  leave  out  of  view  the  two  bi'ethren 
most  interested  in  the  case,  both  of  whom  I 
honor  and  love,  and  hope  to,  so  long  as  they 
are  good  christian  brethren,  and  toward  one 
of  whom  my  relations  are  peculiarly  personal 
and  fraternal,  as  being  a  colleague  with  him 
in  theological  instruction.  And  God  knows 
there  is  no  personal  feeling  in  this  matter 
between  us. 

Now,  sir,  my  conclusions  do  not  impair 
my  confidence  in  these  brethren  in  the  least, 
and  I  have  no  side  about  it,  one  way  or  the 
other.     In  judging  whether  the  facts  prove 


EEV.  DR.  W.  M.  BLACKBURN'S  OPINION. 


229 


tlie  charges,  I  have  been  guided  by  the  fol- 
lowing general  principles: 

1st. — The  defendant  is  presumed  to  be  an 
orthodox  Presbyterian  minister  until  he  is 
proven  guilty  by  the  evidence  adduced  in 
this  Court,  but  he  is  not  proven  guilty  by 
the  argument  and  the  premises  of  the  pros- 
ecutor, however  able  and  eloquent  they  may 
have- been.  It  is  nothing  to  me,  sir,  for  any 
one  to  assert  on  this  floor  that  he  knows 
Prof.  Swing  is  not  a  Presbyterian.  I  have 
just  as  good  a  right  to  assert  that  I  know  lie 
is  a  good  Presbyterian,  because  he  saj's  so. 
And,  sir,  I  am  driven  either  to  assume  in 
this  trial  that  he  is  such  a  Presbyterian,  or 
that  he  is  the  most  consummate  liar  that 
ever  walked  the  streets  of  Chicago — and  I 
cannot  do  that ;  I  cannot  take  the  latter 
position.  What  ?  He  honest  in  the  state- 
ment, and  yet  utterly  inconsistent  I  He  is 
not  a  fool,  and  he  is  not  a  demagogue,  I 
trust ;  and  if  the  charge  be  that  he  is  a  liar, 
let  us  have  the  charge  distinctly  set  before 
us. 

II.  The  prosecutor  must  prove  his  case  by 
fiicts  in  evidence,  and  not  by  his  own  as- 
sumptions, inferences  and  interpretations. 
The  defendant  is  bound  to  produce  only  re- 
butting testimony,  and  only  so  much  of  that 
as  he  may  deem  necessary.  The  fact  that  he 
does  not  produce  a  greater  quantity  of  testi- 
mony, or  a  different  quality  of  evidence, 
such  as  the  prosecutor  may  demand,  offers 
no  just  presumption  that  he  is  not  able  to 
produce  it  if  he  desires. 

III.  Two  inquiries  arise.  One  is :  Has 
the  prosecutor  proven  his  charges,  even  were 
there  no  evidence  at  all  on  the  part  of  the 
defendant  ?  And  the  other  is  :  If  he  seem 
to  have  proven  these  charges,  has  the  defend- 
ant successfully  rebutted  the  allegations  ? 

Now,  I  have  tried  to  look  at  this  subject 
from  both  of  these  points  of  view.  I  have 
carefully  weighed  all  the  testimonj',  and 
have  studiously  read  the  published  sermons 
put  in  evidence.  I  have  collated  the  pas- 
sages on  the  doctrines  in  controversy, 
and  have  noted  them  in  polyglot  form — 
thoughl  do  not  intend  to  edit  a  new  edition. 
In  judging  the  documentary  evidence,  1 
have  kept  in  mind  the  following  points 
and  principles  :  The  oral  testimony,  taken 
altogether,  and  for  its  value,  whatever  it  is, 
supports  the  assumption  that  Prof.  Swing  is 
a  Presbyterian,  evangelical  minister.  He  is 
what  he  says  he  is.     His  own  plea  supports 


that  same  assumption  ;  and  the  law  of  Christ 
and  the  law  of  the  Church  oblige  me  to  put 
a  just  interpretation  upon  quotations  in 
which  errors  are  alleged,  and  upon  errors 
which  may  seem  to  be  proven.  Our  Lord 
was  charged  with  having  said,  "Destroy 
this  temple,  and  in  three  days  I  will  build  it 
again."  Now,  sir,  there  was  a  sense  in 
which  that  specification  was  a  fact.  As  a 
mere  literal  specification,  it  was  true — he 
had  said  it.  "We  know,  sir,  that  the  inter- 
pretation to  the  point  upon  His  words  made 
them  clear  enough.  He  had  never  made  any 
such  threat. 

Now,  sir,  look  at  the  decisions  in  the 
Craighead  case.  This  case  has  been  referred 
to,  and  it  will  be  a  very  important  case  for 
all  time,  I  have  no  doubt.  I  must  read  one 
or  two  passages  here,  because  they  have  had 
a  great  deal  of  influence  upon  my  mind  : 

"Here  it  will  be  important  to  remark  that 
a  man  cannot  be  fairly  convicted  of  heresy 
for  using  expressions  which  may  be  so  inter- 
preted as  to  involve  heretical  doctrines,  if 
they  may  also  admit  of  a  more  favorable 
construction ;  because  no  one  can  tell  ia 
what  sense  the  minister  has  used  it,  &c. 
And  in  such  cases  candor  requires  that  a, 
court  should  favor  the  accused."  How  re- 
markable !  "Should  favor  the  accused  by 
putting  on  his  works  the  more  favorable 
rather  than  the  less  favorable  construction. 
Another  principle  is  that  no  man  can  right- 
fully be  convicted  of  heresy  by  inference  or 
implication  ;  that  is,  we  must  not  charge  an 
accused  person  with  holding  those  conse- 
quences which  may  legitimately" — not  ille- 
gitimately, but  "legitimately  flow  from  his 
assertions." 

And  again,  in  reference  to  vilifying,  deny- 
ing and  rhisrepresenting  doctrines,  where  a 
man  has  misrepresented  the  doctrine  of  Di- 
vine foreordination  and  sovereignty  and 
election.  "It  might,  perhaps,  be  shown  by 
argument  that  Mr.  Craighead  uses  many  ex- 
pressions not  consistent  with  these,  but  agree- 
ably to  the  principle  laid  down  above,  he 
must  not  be  charged  with  holding  these  con- 
sequences unless  ho  has  avowed  them.  These 
passages  of  his  discourse,  it  is  true,  contain 
erronecus  and  off'ensive  things,  but  they  do 
not  establish  the  charge  of  denj'ing,  vilify- 
ing, etc."  "  But  whilst  the  General  Assem- 
bly are  of  the  opinion  that  the  charges 
against  Mr.  Craighead  are  not  clearly  and 
fully  supported  by  the  references,  they  feel 


230 


THE  TEIAL  OF  KEV.  DAVID  SWING. 


it  to  be  their  duty  to  say  that  the  impression 
which  they  have  received  from  hearing  ex- 
tracts from  this  discourse,  are  very  unfavor- 
able ;  and  they  do  believe  that  Mr.  Craig- 
head by  preaching  and  printing  this  sermon 
did  subject  himself  justly  to  censure." 

And  it  is  said,  "Moreover,  the  Assembly 
are  of  opinion  that  the  doctrines  of  this  ser- 
mon in  the  most  favorable  construction, 
are  different  from  those  of  the  Eeformed 
Churches  and  of  our  Church,  and  are  erro- 
neous ;  although  the  error  is  not  of  funda- 
mental importance.  They  have  observed, 
also,  that  this  discourse  contains  many  un- 
just and  illiberal  reflections  on  the  docirine 
which  has  been  the  common  and  uniform  be- 
lief of  the  great  majority  of  the  preachers 
and  writers  of  the  reformed  Churches." 

Now,  sir,  I  cannot  stop  to  explain,  but 
this  will  be  so  clear  that  it  will  hardly  need 
any  explanation,  as  to  faith  being  an  act  of 
the  mind.  Are  we  alwaj^s  to  say  that  faith 
is  the  gift  of  God  in  everything  ?  "  In  re- 
spect to  the  fourth  charge" — this  is  the 
Barnes  case,  page  310  in  the  0.  S.  Digest. 

"  In  respect  to  the  fourth  charge,  that 
faith  is  an  act  of  the  mind,  Mr.  Barnes  does 
teach  it  in  accordance  with  the  Confession  of 
Faith  and  the  Bible ;  but  he  does  not  deny 
that  faith  is  a  fruit  of  the  special  influence  of 
the  Spirit,  and  a  permanent  holy  habit  of 
mind,  in  opposition  to  a  created  essence." 

Now,  how  do  you  know  Prof.  Swing  may 
not  mean  that  very  thing  ?  It  has  not  been 
shown  that  he  does  not.  "  That  faith  is 
counted  for  righteousness,  is  the  language  of 
the  Bible,  and  as  used  by  Mr.  Barnes  means, 
not  that  faith  is  the  meritorious  ground  of 
justification,  but  only  the  instrument  by 
which  the  benefit  of  Christ's  righteousness 
is  appropriated." 

And  then  again,  "  In  respect  to  the  eighth 
charge,  that  Christ  did  not  suffer  the  penalty 
of  the  law,  as  the  vicarious  substitute  of  his 
people,  Mr.  Barnes  only  denies  the  literal 
infliction  of  the  whole  curse,  as  including 
remorse  of  conscience  and  eternal  death  ;  but 
admits  and  teaches,  that  the  sufferings  of 
Christ,  owing  to  the  union  of  the  divine  and 
human  nature  in  the  person  of  the  Mediatur, 
were  a  full  equivalent. 

"  In  respect  to  the  ninth  charge,  that  the 
righteousness  of  Christ  is  not  imputed  to  his 
people,  Mr.  Barnes  teaches  the  imputation 
of  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  but  not  as  im- 
porting a  transfer  of  Christ's  personal  right- 


ousness  to  believers,  which  is  not  the  doctrine 
of  our  church. 

"In  respect  to  the  tenth  charge,  Mr. 
Barnes  has  not  taught  that  justification  con- 
sists in  pardon  only ;  but  has  taught  clearly 
that  it  includes  the  reception  of  believers 
into  favor,  and  their  treatment  as  if  they  had 
not  sinned." 

I  think  these  rules  will  apply  to  this  case. 
Also,  in  judging  this  case,  I  consider  the 
terms  of  Reunion,  and  the  Auburn  Declara- 
tion. 1  submit  that  the  Auburn  Declaration 
does  cover  certain  doctrines  and  interpreta- 
tions of  doctrines  here  in  dispute.  -  Accord- 
ing to  the  interpretations-  given  by  the  pro- 
secutor, you  will  find  that  the  very  things  in 
reference  to  justification  and  in  reference  to 
faith,  are  covered  by  the  Auburn  Declara- 
tion. 

A  general  principle  of  law  also  is,  that  ex- 
tracts from  a  man's  writings  must  be  so 
fairly  and  fully  taken  as  to  represent  the 
writer  correctly  ;  for  example,  certain  words 
taken  from  "Truths  for  To-Day,"  page  78. 
Now,  I  dislike  very  much  to  refer  to  this, 
but  I  cannot  help  it.  I  just  want  to  show 
how  this  quotation  has  been  made.  I  call 
the  attention  of  the  court  to  it.  This  is  the 
extract:  "The  Trinity,  as  formallj''  stated, 
cannot  be  experienced.  Man  has  not  the 
power  to  taste  the  threeness  of  one,  nor  the 
oneness  of  three,  and  see  that  it  is  good. 
Man  cannot  do  His  will  here,  and  '  know  of 
the  doctrine  whether  it  be  from  God.'  It  is 
not  conceivable  that  any  one  will  pretend  to 
have  experienced  three  persons  as  being  one 
person,  the  same  in  substance,  and  at  the 
same  time  equal." 

Now,  sir,  has  the  prosecutor  honestly 
quoted  from  this  in  the  charges  ?  and  has  it 
been  quoted  anywhere  in  trying  to  sustain 
these  charges?  "This  doctrine."  "What 
doctrine  ?  The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  is  it 
not?  "  This  doctrine,  therefore,  belongs  to 
a  simple  religion  of  fact,  and  not  to  one  of 
experience  ;  and  hence  the  distance  between 
a  fact  and  a  perpetual  law.  But,  while  hu- 
man experience  cannot  approach  the  Trinity, 
it  can  approach  the  divineness  of  Christ." 

I  have  not  time,  sir,  to  show  what  line  of 
thought  is  being  pursued  here.  Attention 
has  already  been  called  to  this,  where,  by  a 
comparison — in  order  to  reach  a  comparative 
value  of  truth,  he  is  trying  to  show  that  the 
three  offices  are  made  more  prominent  than 
the  idea  that  the  three  persons  i  re  one  God, 


KEY.  DK.  W.  M.  BLACKBUKN'S  OPINION. 


231 


That  is  not  controverting  the  theory  that 
they  are  one  God.  Some  truth  alleged  to 
be  omitted,  may  be  assumed  in  a  passage 
quoted,  or  from  an  entire  sermon  from  which 
a  quotation  is  made.  Look  at  the  sermon, 
page  246.  See  what  is  assumed  here:  "  As 
the  idea  of  decrees  does  not  originate  in 
Christianity,  but  falls  into  it  from  the  hu- 
man mind,  which  always  must  think  that 
God  has  decreed  all  things,  and  as  the  diffi- 
culty of  free  will  finds  it  origin  not  in  the 
Bible,"  and  so  on.  I  am  not  afraid  to  read 
the  rest,  but  I  simply  want  to  show  that  the 
doctrine  of  decrees  underlies  all  these  state- 
ments. So  I  take  it,  from  the  sermon  on 
Faith,  which  I  am  now  reading,  the  whole 
doctrine  of  faith  is  assumed.  He  goes  on  to 
say:  "  The  legal  salvation  may  be  a  prelimi- 
nary or  a  concomitant,"  and  so  on.  I  think 
you  will  find  the  doctrine  of  faith,  or  justi- 
fication by  faith  is  assumed  here.  I  think  it 
will  be  proper  to  say  that  very,  few  of  us 
would  put  the  matter  just  as  he  does. 

Look  at  the  sermon  on  "  Salvation  and  Mo- 
rality ;  "  and  see  how  it  is  assumed  here: 
"  There  is  no  conflict,  perhaps,  between  Paul 
and  the  Saviour.  I  use  the  word '  perhaps  '  only 
as  a  further  confession  of  the  impossibility  of 
determining  with  scientific  exactness,  the 
whole  of  Paul's  thought  on  the  one  hand, 
and  the  whole  of  the  Saviour's  thought  on 
the  other.  Assuming  inspiration,  there  of 
course  is  no  conflict.  But  not  thus  begging 
the  question  and  appealing  to  rationalism, 
there  seems  no  discord  in  the  two  strains  of 
music.  Paul  unfolds  salvation  from  with- 
out. He  tells  what  is  necessary  outside  of 
man.  Hence,  Calvary,  and  law,  and  impu- 
tation, and  satisfaction  come  upon  his  hori- 
zon at  all  hours.  There  the  Jewish  altar  is 
transformed  into  a  cross.  The  first  Adam 
and  the  second  Adam  meet.  The  past  sins  of 
humanity  are  gathered  up  mountain  high, 
and  a  price  is  to  be  paid  for  them,  paid  in 
blood  and  death."  If  I  heard  that  from 
Professor  Swing,  I  would  know  it  was  ortho- 
dox I 

Rev.  Mr.  Walker. — You  mean  Professor 
Patton. 

Rev.  Dr.  Blackburn. — No,  sir,  I  know 
whom  I  mean.  I  mean  Professor  Swing. 
Here  is  another  principle  ;  a  passage  alleged 
to  be  erroneous  may  be  explained  by  another 
passage  manifestly  orthodox,  or  by  the  state- 
ment of  the  accused  that  he  holds  the  doc- 
trines in  question  in  an  evttngelical  sense. 


Now,  I  believe  it  has  been  admitted  that 
there  are  passages  in  this  book — and  I  sup- 
pose a  wonderful  number  of  them — that  are 
evangelical.  One  good  brother  read  this 
book  some  time  ago,  and  thought  there  was 
nothing  you  could  find  in  it  on  which  to 
convict  a  man  of  heresy.  I  would  not  like 
to  give  that  brother's  opinion  to-day. 

The  inquiry  is,  does  the  accused  explain 
himself?  I  think  it  is  a  very  proper  inquiry. 
It  is  assumed  in  the  Craighead  case  that 
such  will  be  the  rule.  Now,  we  may  apply 
to  his  sermons  that  grand  law  so  necessary 
in  the  interpretation  of  the  Divine  Word — 
the  analogy  of  the  Scripture.  Let  us  apply 
that  to  any  man's  sermons  as  well  as  to  those 
of  Prof.  Swing.  Why,  we  would  find  it 
mighty  hard  sailing  to  go  through  the  Bible 
if  it  were  not  for  that  rule  of  interpretation 
— and  I  believe  in  the  plenary  inspiration  of 
the  Scriptures.  I  believe  every  man  should 
state  his  faith  as  he  goes  along.  No  rule  of 
interpretation  should  be  applied  to  the  ser- 
mons which  could  not  be  safely  applied  to 
the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  which  we  would 
not  be  willing  to  have  applied  to  any  ser- 
mons, or  to  any  theological  writings. 

Let  us  take  the  Pirst  Epistle  of  John  and 
judge  of  it  by  what  is  not  in  it,  and  I  im- 
agine you  will  throw  away  some  of  these 
cardinal  doctrines  of  the  Bible  because  they 
are  not  expressed  just  as  some  of  you  would 
like  to  have  them  expressed,  and  not  only 
have  to  judge  that  epistle  by  some  things 
that  are  in  it,  but  by  some  things  that  are 
not  in  it.  "Whosoever  is  born  of  God  does 
not  commit  sin.  He  cannot  sin  because  he 
is  born  of  God."  Take  that  by  itself.  I  do 
not  judge  the  book  in  that  way.  I  do  not 
apply  a  rule  of  interpretation  to  any  man's 
sermons-  that  I  am  not  willing  to  have  ap- 
plied to  every  apostle  or  prophet  who  ever 
spoke  or  wrote. 

Again,  constructive  heresy  is  not  actiona- 
able  heresy.  I  need  not  enlarge  upon  that, 
surely. 

If  a  man  comes  to  us  and  we  know  that 
he  preaches  the  Bible,  would  we  not  receive 
him  as  a  minister  in  our  church  ?  If  he 
should  say  :  "  I  am  not  fond  of  formulated 
doctrines,  and  I  can't  say  that  I  take  every- 
thing in  your  Confession  of  Faith  just  as  it 
is  put  there,  but  1  hold  the  system" — and  yet 
if  he  believed  his  Bible,  and  loved  it,  and 
understood  it,  and  preached  it,  wouldn't  we 
take  him  into  our  church  ? 


232 


THE  TEIAL  OF  EEV.  DAVID  SWING. 


Well,  sir,  I  am  astonished,  then,  to  hear 
that  while  we  would  not  receive  into  our 
church  a  thoroughly  Bible  preacher,  we 
would  only  ask  him  to  be  a  Presbyterian. 
We  thus  unchurch  thousands  of  men  ;  and, 
sir,  our  Divine  Master  would  not  be  received 
into  the  Presbytery  of  Chicago  to-day,  lam 
afraid,  if  he  stood  upon  the  position  upon 
which  he  stood  when  he  came  into  the  world, 
for  I  do  not  understand  Him  to  have  ever 
said  one  single  word  about  Presbyterianism, 
strict  and  formulated.  Another  principle. 
No  individual  in  our  church  is  the  authori- 
tative interpreter  of  the  Confession  of  Paith. 
The  standards  must  be  taken  just  as  they 
are,  and  if  there  be  a  difference  in  the  inter- 
pretation, the  benefit  of  the  doubt  goes  to  the 
accused.  Now,  I  think  there  is  a  great  lib-' 
erty  in  our  Presbyterianism.  There  is  no 
man  in  this  Presbytery  authorized  to  inter- 
pret the  Confession  of  Faith.  No  man  can 
authoritatively  interpret  the  Confession  of 
Faith  where  it  is  doubtful.  Can  the  General 
Assembly  ?  It  cannot  give  an  opinion  on 
that  subject  because  we  are  not  before  the 
General  Assembly.  The  standards  must  be 
taken  as  they  are. 

Here  is  another  principle:  a  statement  of 
unpleasant  facts,  historical  or  moral,  is  not 
criminal  or  heretical.  It  does  not  prove  un- 
faithfulness. It  may  prove  faithfulness  in 
maintaining  the  truths  of  the  Gospel,  as  in 
the  case  of  our  Lord,  Luke  xi,  42  :  48:  xiii, 
34.  Now  take  the  same  thing  and  apply  it 
to  specification  4,  charge  1,  It  may  be  very 
unpleasant  to  have  men  tell  us  that  it  does 
not  sound  as  we  would  like  it,  to  be  perfectly 
comfortable,  but  I  am  afraid  there  is  an  im- 
mense amount  of  historic  truth  in  it.  "  Over 
the  idea  that  two  and  two  make  four,  no  blood 
has  been  shed  ;  but  over  the  insinuation  that 
three  may  be  one  or  one  three,  there  has 
often  been  a  demand  for  external  influence 
to  brace  up  for  the  work  the  frail  logical 
faculty." 

And  somewhere  else  he  speaks  about  the 
wars.  Do  we  not  know  about  the  Arian 
war  ?  I  do  not  say  it  is  proper  to  announce 
them  in  sermons,  but  thoy  may  be  simply  an 
enunciation  of  facts.  I  am  sometimes  very 
glad  that  people  of  this  world,  and  in  the 
church,  do  not  know  all  the  facts  in  church 
history. 

Now,  even  irony  may  be  too  true  and  just. 
Of  the  propriety  of  using  it  in  sermons  I 
now  give  no  opinion.  The  irony  and  ridicule 


imputed  to  certain  extracts  in  these  chargea 
may  not  be  so  much  in  the  text  itself  as  in 
the  construction  of  the  text.  His  people  may 
not  have  understood  him  to  be  so  ironical, 
but  after  we  have  read  them  over  and  over 
and  determined  to  make  them  irony,  it  is 
easy  to  make  them  irony.  It  is  a  maxim 
that  ridicule  is  not  the  test  of  truth  ;  and  is 
it  not  just  as  true  that  it  is  not  the  index  of 
error  ? 

Now,  are  we  left  to  the  principle  of  char- 
itable construction  in  judging  of  these  ser- 
mons ?  I  think  not ;  for  we  are  aided  by 
the  testimony  of  the  elders  of  the'  Fourth 
Church  who  believe  that-  he  has  preached 
evangelical  doctrines  at  all  times ;  and  we  ' 
cannot  come  forward  and  question  these 
men — and  I  would  not  be  willing  to  think,, 
as  I  believe  it  has  been  asserted  on  this  floor, 
that  whatever  these  men  may  say  about  un- 
derstanding him  to  preach  in  the  evangelical 
sense,  it  cannot  be  believed.  And  also  the 
passages  adduced  which-  were  plainly  evan- 
gelical, and  admitted  to  be  so,  a  just  con- 
struction of  these  requires  that  an  evangel- 
ical sense  be  given  to  a  number  of  mem,  and 
at  least  enough  to  furnish  a  basis  upon  which 
to  judge  the  rest.  The  doubtful  pa.«sages — 
and  I  do  not  assume  for  a  moment  that  there 
are  not  doubtful  passages  in  these  sermons — 
there  are  doubtful  passages  in  almost  every 
writing  I  have  had  laid  before  me  ;  I  may 
say  that  I  examined  one  passage  of  Scripture 
in  which  I  counted  eighty-two  different  in- 
terpretations of  it; — the  doubtful  passages 
require  charity,  and  the  plain  passages, 
simple  justice. 

Gospel  truths  may  be  preached  without 
the  use  of  strictly  scriptural  phrases.  The 
Gospel  is  not  technical  in  its  terms.  Prof. 
Swing  was  not  ordained  by  his  Presbytery 
to  preach  Presbyterianism  in  technical  or 
scientific  language,  but  to  maintain  the  truths 
of  the  gospel — it  is  wonderful  hovv^  simple  it 
is — and  to  maintain  these  not  only  in  the 
pulpit  but  in  the  lecture  room  and  every- 
where. 

Now,  the  relevant  testimony  that  he  has 
taught  these  things  in  his  oral  lectures  has 
not  been  controverted  with  success,  and  the 
charge  that  he  has  failed  to  teach  them  in 
his  published  sermons  has  not  been  proven. 
It  is  admitted  that  certain  passages  are  evan- 
gelical if  taken  in  their  plain  sense.  It  is 
charged  that  others  are  as  evidently  heretical. 
Now,   does    the    accused   intend   dangerous 


REV.  NEWTON  BARRETT'S  OPINION. 


233 


error  in  all  these  ?  Does  he  intend  both 
truth  and  error  in  them  ?  If  so,  in  each 
case  he  should  he  charged  with  hypocrisy 
and  willful  deception,  but  if  not,  the  truths 
asserted  may  neutralize  the  errors  alleged ; 
and,  sir,  we  are  bound  to  put  the  most  chari- 
table construction  upon  sentences  which  even 
may  be  called  in  question. 

These  statements,  which  do  not  fully  cover 
the  ground,  otter  the  reasons  for  my  deliber- 
ate opinion  that  the  charges  are  not  proven. 
As  to  the  most  serious  of  the  specifications, 
my  opinion  will  be  indicated  sufBciently  by 
my  vote  upon  them  at  the  proper  time,  ex- 
cept I  will  say  that  the  specifications  appear 
so  drawn  that  while  a  specification  may  be  a 
fact,  yet  it  is  not  a  fault,  and  cannot  be  sus- 
tained in  its  place  in  its  relation  to  the 
charges  and  in  the  evident  intention  of  the 
prosecutor. 

Now,  truth  requires  love  as  well  as  justice, 
and  if  I  have  erred  in  the  eflfort  to  be  just  to 
the  truth  and  to  consult  the  doctrinal  sound- 
ness and  peace,  and  purity  of  the  church,  my 
error  may  appear  on  the  side  of  charity 
toward  one  brother,  and  I  am  sure  that  my 
other  beloved  brother  will  respect  my  con- 
scientious opinion. 

And,  Mr.  Moderator,  as  to  the  results  of 
this  trial  to  any  one  of  us,  they  are  not  to  be 
counted  by  a  conscientious  man.  "Let  us 
do  right  though  the  heavens  fall," — and  the 
heavens  will  not  fall  if  we  do  right — not  upon 
us,  at  least ;  and  as  to  any  fear  of  rending  in 
twain  the  Presbyterian  Church,  for  whose 
Reunion  I  did  what  I  could,  and  I  am  proud 
to  have  done  it,  that  will  never  come  if  we 
are  honest  towards  each  other,  and  are  faith- 
ful in  maintaining  the  truths  of  the  gospel. 


OPINION  OF  REV.  NEWTON  BARRETT. 

What  I  will  have  to  say,  sir,  -sVill  be  of  so 
little  weight,  and  the  ground  has  been  so 
covered,  that  I  confine  myself  to  two  or 
three  points.  When  I  come  to  vote  I  ask 
myself  first  the  question  propounded  by  Dr. 
Halsey  :  Is  this  a  criminal  prosecution  ?  I 
know  no  prosecutions  in  the  Presbyterian 
Church  that  are  not  criminal  and  in  a  crim- 
inal form  ;  there  are  no  civil  prosecutions 
in  the  Presbyterian  Church  ;  we  are  trying 
oflFenses,  and  offenses  are  crimes.  The  rules 
of  criminal  trials,  therefore,  prevail  in  this 
case.     My  second   inquiry   is  :  What  is   the 


real  charge?  The  real  charge  is  heretical 
preaching.  The  virtual  charge  is  disbelief 
in  some  things  and  unfaithfulness  in  some 
things.  My  next  inquiry  is,  whether  nom- 
inal charges  are  actionable.  My  opinion  is 
that  a  want  of  belief  is  not  an  indictable  of- 
fense. It  cannot  be  made  indictable  anyhow, 
or  anj-  way.  He  does  not  believe — it  is  not 
an  indictable  offense,  in  my  judgment,  and  I 
must  say  so.  The  next  inquiry  is,  as  to  the 
unfaithfulness.  He  is  unfaithful.  That  is  an- 
cther  charge.  Unfaithfulness  is -so  vague  a 
charge  as  not  to  be  an  indictable  offense. 
My  next  inquiry  is.  Do  the  specifications 
prove  the  charges  as  they  stand?  If  they 
do  prove  those  charges,  I  have  already  said 
that  the  charges  themselves  are  not,  in  my 
judgment,  actionable  and  indictable.  There 
recurs  this  further  consideration  :  the  specifi- 
cations may  prove  more  than  the  charges. 
The  prosecutor  has  himself  told  us  that  if 
the  specifications  do  not  sustain  the  charges, 
though  the  facts  proved  in  the  specifications 
may  be  true,  we  may  yet  vote  against  the 
sustaining  of  the  charges  by  the  specifica- 
tions. 

There  are  some  of  the  specifications  the 
facts  of  which  are  proved  satisfactorily  to  my 
mind.  I  will  not  indicate  them  here ;  but 
although  proved,  they  do  not  prove  such  a 
degree  of  unfaithfulness  that  I  can  vote  to 
sustain  the  charge. 

The  specifications  do  not  begin  to  come 
near  supporting  the  charges  of  unbelief. 
They  are  abandoned  pretty  much. 

There  is  this  further  consideration :  A 
specification  may — and  this  touches  the  point 
I  first  raised — a  specification  may  prove  more 
than  the  charge,  and  then  if,  for  example, 
the  specification  proves  a  prevarication  and 
falsehood,  can  Ion  that  specification  condemn 
the  brother  when  the  thing  alleged  on  the 
general  charge  is  less  than  the  specification  ? 
I  think  I  cannot.  The  specifications  may 
prove  things  for  which  the  brother  is  indicta- 
ble, and  yet  the  charges  may  excuse  me,  be- 
cause of  their  narrowness  and  their  limita- 
tions, from  including  them  in  my  vote  to 
sustain,  or  not  sustain.  The  charge  may 
preclude  me  from  maintaining  the  guilt  of 
the  brother  under  the  specification.  I  can 
only  vote  for  so  much  as  is  sufficient  to  sus- 
tain the  charge.  I  think  of  nothing  else  that 
may  come  into  my  verdict,  and  I  shall  give 
my  vote  when  the  time  comes  for  giving  it. 


234 


THE  TEIAL  OP  EEV.  DAVID  SWING. 


OPINION   OP   REV.    WALTER   FORSYTH. 

Mr.  Moderator  :  However  it  may  be  in 
the  ultimate  decision  of  the  case,  certainly 
we  must  all  admit  that  the  prosecutor  has 
displayed  ability  in  the  management  and  ar- 
gument of  it.  On  the  other  hand,  I  feel  that 
it  must  ever  be  a  cause  for  regret,  no  matter 
whether  this  be  deemed  a  private  or  public 
offense,  that  before  the  prosecutor  published 
his  "  doubts,"  and  preferred  his  charges,  that 
he  did  not  consult  with  some  of  the  older  and 
prominent  members  of  the  Presbytery  in  re- 
gard to  this  whole  matter.  It  is  very  impor- 
tant that  all  private  means  should  have  been 
used  before  public  steps  were  resorted  to, 
when  we  consider  the  grave  issues  and  possi- 
ble consequences  of  this  trial. 

We  have  been  told  by  the  prosecutor,  re- 
peatedly, to  leave  out  of  view  all  personal 
considerations,  as  regards  the  prosecutor  and 
accused,  when  we  consider  the  merits  of  this 
case.  I  am  certain,  as  regards  myself  and 
many  other  members  of  this  Presbytery, 
that  if  the  prosecutor  were  in  the  place  of  the 
accused,  and  the  accused  in  the  position  of 
the  prosecutor — the  evidence  being  the  same 
— the  final  decision  would  be  substantially 
the  same.  The  principles  and  facts  involved, 
and  not  personal  considerations,  will  shape 
the  final  judgment. 

As  regards  Prof.  Swing  :  that  he  is  at  times 
seemingly  vague  and  indefinite  in  his  state- 
ments, we  admit.  This  arises,  we  think,  from 
his  idiosyncracy,  or  peculiar  structure  of 
mind.  He  also  at  times  uses  seemingly  un- 
happy or  unguarded  forms  of  expression  ; 
but  that  he  disbelieves,  or  does  not  teach  the 
evangelical  doctrines  of  religion,  we  cannot 
admit  from  the  evidence  before  us.  Prof. 
Halsey,  in  his  remarks  this  morning,  en- 
deavored to  show  that  Prof.  Swing  depre- 
ciated and  made  light  of  Christian  doctrine. 
One  of  the  strongest  passages  that  I  ever 
read  in  any  volume  of  sermons,  in  defense  of 
the  importance  of  Christian  doctrine,  may 
be  found  in  "Truths  for  To-day,"  p.  73,  in 
which  Prof.  Swing  speaks  thus  :  "We  con- 
clude otherwise,  and  submit  the  proposition 
that  no  man  can  preach  Christianity  without 
being  a  doctrinal  preacher,  and  no  man  can 
acquire  a  Christian  or  religious  heart,  except 
by  the  obedience  of  doctrine.  Doctrine  sus- 
tains the  same  relation  to  Christian  charac- 
ter and  hope  that  mechanical  law  sustains  to 
the  cathedral  of  St.  Paul,  or  that  the  law  of 


sound  sustains  to  the  church  chimes,  or  the 
music  of  the  many-voiced  organ.  The  at- 
tempt to  separate  Christianity,  in  any  way, 
from  its  own  announced  doctrines  is  as  piti- 
able a  weakness,  as  it  would  be  to  invite  en- 
gineers to  bridge  a  vast  river  by  emotional 
action  wholly  separate  from  any  creed  of 
mechanics.  Having  reached  the  inference 
that  Christianity  is  founded  upon  doctrine, 
that  doctrines  are  its  state  laws,  and  that  all 
preachers  must  be  doctrinal  preachers,  and 
all  Christians  doctrinal  Christians,  let  us 
look  now  into  the  quality  of  these  doctrines 
which  all  must  teach  and  obey."     ' 

Professor  Swing  does  not  contend  against 
Christian  doctrine — a  right  use  of  doctrine 
— but  against  a  spirit  of  dogmatism,  against 
a  narrow  bigoted  abuse  of  doctrine. 

Again,  Professor  Swing  is  charged  with 
teaching  Sabellianism  as  regards  the  persons 
of  the  Trinity,  and  TJnitarianism  as  regards 
the  deity  of  Christ.  Let  me  quote  from 
"  Truths  for  To-  Day,"  page  81,  on  these  two 
points:  "*  *  *  and  if  the  three  oflSces  of 
God,  as  Father,  and  Eedeemer,  and  Spirit, 
are  more  prominent  than  the  idea  that  these 
persons  are  one  God    *    *    *  " 

This  is  one  of  the  most  explicit  and  concise 
statements,  of  the  Deity  and  Personality  of 
the  persons  of  the  Trinity  that  can  be  found 
anywhere  outside  the  definition  of  the  Trin- 
ity in  the  "  Shorter  Catechism."  Professor 
Swing  here  speaks  of  the  three  offices  of  God, 
as  Father,  Eedeemer,  and  Spirit.  He  does 
not  say  three  appearances,  or  manifestations, 
but  ofiices — that  is,  ministries,  or  services. 
In  speaking  of  God  as  Pather,  God  as  Ee- 
deemer, God  as  the  Spirit,  he  distinctly  rec- 
ognizes the  Deity  of  the  Father,  the  Deity  of 
the  Son,  and  the  Deity  of  the  Spirit.  In  the 
succeeding  clauses,  "these  three  persons  are 
one  God,"  he  distinctly  recognizes  the  per- 
sonality of  the  Father,  the  personality  of 
the  Son,  and  the  personality  of  the  Spirit. 
This  quotation,  with  the  context,  does  not 
teach  Sabellianism  and  Unitarianism  ;  but  it 
teaches  the  Deity  and  Personality  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Spirit. 

Again  the  prosecutor  repeatedly  empha- 
sized that  part  of  his  argument,  in  which, 
referring  to  the  specifications  of  the  first 
charge,  he  claimed  that  he  had  proved  that 
Prof.  Swing  had  not  taught  the  evangelical 
doctrines  of  religion,  and  that,  assuming 
Prof.   Swing  to  be  an  honest  man,   he  had 


KEV.  W.  F.  WOOD'S  OPINION. 


235 


taught  what  he  did  believe ;  therefore,  we 
must  conclude  that  he  does  not  believe  these 
doctrines,  since  he  has  not  taught  them  ;  and 
therefore,  Prof.  Swing  is  not  only  guilty  of 
the  first  charge  but  also  of  the  second.  Now 
we  do  not  admit  that  Prof.  Swing  has  not 
taught  the  evangelical  doctrines,  we  think 
the  evidence  shows  the  contrary.  Prof. 
Swing,  in  his  plea,  expresses  his  belief  in 
these  doctrines — namely,  "  The  Inspiration 
of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  the  Trinity,  the  Di- 
vinity of  Christ,  the  office  of  Christ  as  a 
Mediator  when  grasped  by  an  obedient 
faith,  conversion  by  God's  Spirit,  man's 
natural  sinfulness,  and  the  final  separation 
of  the  righteous  and  the  wicked."  Prof. 
Swing  claims  to  believe  these  doctrines  in 
their  evangelical  sense.  Now,  since  he  be- 
lieves them,  the  contrary  not  being  proven, 
and  assuming  him  to  be  an  honest  man,  he 
must  have  taught  them  during  his  ministry. 
The  prosecutor's  own  argument  used  in  an 
opposite  direction  instead  of  showing  Prof. 
Swing  guilty  of  both  charges,  shows  that  he 
is  not  guilty  of  either  the  second,  or  the  first. 
Again,  Prof.  Swing  is  charged  with  de- 
nying the  inspiration  of  certain  parts  of 
Scripture.  In  his  plea  he  declares  his  belief 
in  the  doctrine  of  Inspiration,  in  the  evan- 
gelical sense  of  the  term;  he,  therefore,  be- 
lieves in  the  inspiration  of  the  entire  Word 
of  God.  Expressions  of  his  with  reference  to 
one  or  two  points  in  the  Old  Testament,  and 
the  Apocalypse  in  the  New,  are  quoted  to 
prove  the  contrary.  We  think  these  points 
in  dispute  are  questions  of  interpretation, 
and  not  of  inspiration.  For  example,  Prof. 
Swing  believes  the  book  of  the  Eevelation  to 
be  a  series  of  purely  subjective  visions,  and 
not  of  objective  prophecies  to  be  fulfilled  in 
the  future.  We  all  know  there  have  been 
numberless  diff'erent  theories  of  interpreta- 
tion of  this  book,  and  whilst  we  believe 
Prof.  Swing's  theory  to  be  wrong,  not  ac- 
cording with  the  subject-matter  of  the  book, 
yet  we  do  not  understand  him  to  impugn 
the.  inspiration  of  the  book.  He  is  wrong  as 
to  its  interpretation,  but  does  not  deny  its 
inspiration. 


OPINION  OF  HEV.  Vy.  F.  "WOOD. 

Mr.  Moderator  :  It  is  hardlj^  necessary 
for  the  younger  members  of  the  court  to  go 
over  a  course  that  has  been  so  fully  gone  over 
by  the  older  heads,  who  have  made  these 
subjects  studies  for  years ;  but  I  would  im- 


press upon  us  all,  if  it  needs  to  be  im pressed 
upon  us,  the  words  that  my  brother  Young 
has  previously  used,  in  reference  to  our  re- 
lations to  the  future  world,  as  we  sit  in  judg- 
ment on  this  case.  We  all  know  how  dif- 
ficult it  is  to  judge  of  these  things,  without 
sufi"ering  personalities  to  come  in  ;  we  know 
that  we  are  human  ;  that  the  person  will 
manifest  and  assert  itself;  and  so  there 
is  all  the  more  need  for  us  to  observe 
this  rule.  I  feel  it,  in  my  case,  and  I 
trust  others  have  felt  it.  I  believe  they  do 
feel  the  necessity  of  striving  to  meet  our  re- 
sponsibility to  God  rather  than  to  man.  We 
may  talk  of  charity,  we  may  talk  of  liberty ; 
we  may  be  zealous  in  striving  to  stand  up  for 
a  man — for  one  who  may  be  a  brother,  bound 
to  us  by  ties  of  aff'ection  and  kindred ;  still 
there  is  One  that  sticketh  closer  than  a 
brother  ;  there  is  One  to  whom  our  allegiance 
is  due,  more  than  to  any  man  on  earth.  And  so 
I  feel  that  we  need  carefully  and  prayerfully 
to  sit  in  judgment  upon  this  matter.  It  is 
not  necessary,  as  I  have  said,  to  go  over  the 
points,  and  I  do  not  propose  to  do  so ;  but  I 
feel  like  impressing  this  point,  to  convince 
the  world  that  we  as  Presbyters  have  decided 
this  thing,  free  from  merely  personal  preju- 
dice. I  have  to  stand  where  I  have  to  cast 
my  vote,  contrary  to  the  teachings  of  one  of 
my  professors,  and  that  same  professor  my 
pastor  in  the  East ;  but  there  is  no  personal- 
ity. I  have  sat  under  his  teachings  in  the 
pulpit,  and  under  his  teaching  in  the  pro- 
fessor's chair,  but  I  cannot  see  it  as  he  sees  it. 
It  does  not  follow  that  there  must  be  per- 
sonality between  us.  The  prosecutor  is  com- 
paratively a  stranger  to  me.  I  had  my  im- 
pressions, and  I  had  my  doubts  and  ques- 
tions, before  I  knew  there  was  any  such  a 
man  as  Professor  Patton  in  existence.  When 
a  student  in  the  Seminary,  I  received  my 
impressions,  as  did  also  other  students  who 
had  heard  Professor  Swing's  preaching.  I  re- 
ceived my  impressions  from  the  writings  of 
Professor  Swing,  also  ;  so  that  these  doubts 
existed  in  my  mind,  long  before  they  were 
expressed  in  the  Interior;  and  so  I  may  say 
truly,  except  so  far  as  the  argument  of  the 
prosecutor  may  have  added  weight — :md 
they  have  not  served  me  in  this  view — 
though  I  go  against  my  old  professor,  and 
pastor  for  three  years — so,  I  say,  we  may  all 
strive  to  put  out  of  our  hearts  personalities, 
and  look  at  this  matter  as  the  pure  naked 
truth,  as  we  shall  answer  for  it  at  the  Last 


236 


THE  TRIAL  OF  REV.  DAVID  SWING. 


Day.  We  have  come  to  this  case,  not  as 
many  think,  simjjly  through  the  instigation 
of  the  prosecutor.  I  am  convinced  that 
many  in  this  community,  think  it  has 
been  simply  the  prosecutor  who  has 
stirred  up  this  thing.  I  have  heard 
it  said  that  there  is  a  young  man  who 
has  come  out  here,  and  striven  to  lift 
himself  before  the  eyes  of  the  people 
simply  by  striving  to  pull  down  an- 
other. But  those  who  sat  in  Synod  last  fall 
will  remember  the  action  that  was  proposed 
to  be  taken  then  when  it  was  proposed  to  cite 
this  Presbytery  before  Synod  to  show  reason 
why  steps  were  not  taken  to  arraign  Prof. 
Swing  for  heresy.  The  community  at  large 
may  not  take  the  Church  papers,  but  this  they 
do  know — since  it  has  been  discussed  all  over 
the  country — discussed  before  the  prosecutor 
touched  it — that  it  is  not  done  through  any 
persecution,  as  has  been  intimated.  Because 
we  differ  in  opinion,  cannot  two  of  us  sit  in 
judgment  upon  one  another  without  the  idea 
that  it  is  persecution,  or  that  we  must  burn 
or  hang?  It  seems  to  me  strange,  in  this 
enlightened  age,  this  age  of  liberality,  that 
there  should  be  so  little  of  it.  All  the  time 
the  prosecutor  stands  here,  he  stands  here 
simply  with  the  thought  and  feeling  that  he  is 
doing  God's  service.  It  may  turn  out  in  the 
future  years,  and  in  the  judgment  day,  that 
like  Paul  he  was  mistaken.  And  yet  I  think 
not ;  and  I  think  in  this  age  of  liberality,  the 
Presbyterian  Church — as  that  church  which 
for  years,  for  centuries  has  stood  especially 
as  the  representative  of  the  truths  of  God — 
that  Presbyterian  Church  ought  to  take  heed 
now  before  she  opens  the  gate  wider  to  this 
liberality  of  opinion.  V\''e  have  as  much  lib- 
erality as  is  consistent  with  the  truth  of  God, 
I  think,  already.  We  have  our  standards 
which  have  stood  the  test  of  years,  and  I,  for 
one,  feel  like  standing  upon  them  still.  I 
know  nothing,  I  may  say,  in  a  sense  of  New 
and  Old  School.  Those  things  came  before 
I  was  old  enough  to  know  anything  about 
them,  and  I  have  avoided  the  subject  of  the 
distinctions  between  them,  because  I  do  not 
want  to  know  those  distinctions ;  I  do  not 
know  many  of  the  peculiar  shades,  and  I  do 
not  want  to  know  them.  In  that  respect  I 
stand  unprejudiced.  But  whatever  school 
you  may  call  it,  I  am  ready  to  take  my  stand 
upon  the  Westminster  Confession,  and  I  ex- 
pect to  stand  there  for  many  a  day  to  come  ; 
and  1  do  not  consider  this  as  bigotry.     I  con- 


sider, when  I  study  carefully  the  fine  print 
at  the  bottom  of  the  Confession  of  Faith, 
that  that  Confession  is  right.  We  are  all 
well  enough  acquainted  with  it  to  know  that 
that  fine  print  consists  of  extracts  from  the 
Scriptures. 


OPINION  OF  REV.  E.  B.  DAVIS. 

Mk.  Moderator  and  Brethren- :  I  feel 
that  I  am  ready  to  vote,  as  I  understand  the 
evidence  and  the  law  in  this  case,  so  that  I  can 
vote  intelligently  ;  and  I  believe  that  the 
Eldership  should  be  heard,  and  I  would  like 
to  give  my  time  to  Brother  Barber,  as  repre- 
senting the  Elder^hip,  as  "they, have  not  been 
heard  at  all  in  this  case. 


OPINION  OF  REV.  DR.   E.  L.  HUKD. 

Mr.  Moderator  :  Although  it  is  utterly 
impossible  to  give  an  opinion  on  so  impor- 
tant a  case  in  five  minutes,  I  desire  to  refer 
simply  to  two  things  in  the  Confession  of 
Faith  and  the  Form  of  Government,  which 
have  an  important  bearing  in  my  own  mind. 
The  Form  of  Government,,  when  we  were 
passing  out  from  the  province  of  a  State 
Church,  and  a  State  religion,  we  proposed  to 
the  people  of  the  United  States  in  the  most 
favorable  way,  the  Form  of  Government  and 
the  Confession  of  Faith  which  we  have 
adopted.  I  desire  to  read  one  or  two  sen- 
tences. "  The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America,  in  presenting  to 
the  Christian  public  the  system  of  Union, 
and  the  Form  of  Government  and  discipline 
which  they  have  adopted,  have  thought  pro- 
per to  state  by  way  of  introduction,  a  few  of 
the  general  principles  by  which  they  have 
been  governed  in  the  formation  of  the  plan. 
This,  it  is  hoped,  will  in  some  measure  pre- 
vent those  rash  misconstructions,  and  uncan- 
did  refiections,  .which  usually  proceed  from 
an  imperfect  view  of  any  subject,  as  well  as 
make  the  several  parts  of  the  system  plain, 
and  the  whole  perspicuous  and  fully  under- 
stood." 

The  passage  in  the  Confession  of  Faith  I 
wish  to  read  is  merely  this  :  "  The  infallible 
rule  of  interpretation  of  Scripture  is  the 
Scripture  itself;"  and  then  the  section  im- 
mediately following  :  "  The  Supreme  Judge 
by  which  all  forms  of  religion  are  to  be  deter- 
mined, and  all  decrees  of  councils,  opinions 
of  ancient  writers,  and  doctrines  of  men,  and 
private  spirits  are  to  be  examined,  and  under 
whose  sentence  we  are  to  rest,   can  be  no 


KEY.  DK.  E.  L.  HUKD'S  OPINION. 


237 


other  but  the  Holy  Spirit  speaking   in  the  I 
Scriptures." 

In  making  up  a  decision  whicli  shall  com- 
mend itself  to  an  impartial  public,  and  to 
the  benediction  of  the  Great  Head  of  the 
Church,  I  desire  to  take  our  stand,  or  my 
own  stand,  in  coming  to  such  decision,  upon 
an  idea  which  I  consider  to  be  stated  in  those 
articles  from  our  Confession  of  Faith,  and 
the  substance  of  which  endorses  this  idea : 
that  no  minister  of  the  Presbyterian  church 
can  ever  be  tried  simply  upon  what  we  have 
come  flippantly  to  call  "our  standards,"  but 
upon  those  standards  as  interpreted  and 
iudped  forevermore  by  the  Holy  Scriptures. 

When,  in  my  ordination  vows,  I  sincerely 
received  and  adopted  the  Confession  of 
Faith  as  containing  the  system  of  doctrines 
contained  in  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  I 
received  and  adopted  a  Confession  of  Faith 
which  pronounced  itself  to  be  a  fallible  rule, 
and  not  an  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  prac- 
tice. I  received  and  adopted  a  Confession 
of  Faith  which  states,  in  itself,  that  it  is  an 
imperfect  rule  of  faith,  and  which,  therefore, 
not  only  permits  but  obligates  every  minister, 
who  is  faithful  to  his  high  trust  and  ordina- 
tion vows,  if  he  sees  a  defect  in  that  Confes- 
sion of  Faith,  to  point  it  out  under  proper 
circumstances,  anywhere  and  everywhere,  as 
a  teacher  of  the  Gospel  of  Christ.  I  say  that 
my  ordination  vow  requires  me  to  receive 
and  to  treat  that  Confession  of  Faith  as  a 
fallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  and  not  an 
infallible  rule.  The  Bible  is  the  only  infall- 
ible rule.  The  question  evermore  to  be  de- 
cided, upon  the  constitution  of  our  Church, 
dear  brethren,  is,  whether  our  views  are 
•correct  or  not ;  in  regard  to  defects  in  the 
Confession  of  Faith  ;  whether  the  defects  we 
have  found,  in  the  language  or  the  state- 
ments of  the  Confession  of  Faith,  are  such  as 
effect  the  integrity  of  the  standards,  whether 
they  are  such  as  to  contravene,  last  of  all, 
the  "Word  of  God ;  for  every  Presbyterian 
minister  has  a  right  upon  the  floor  of  his 
Presbytery,  his  Synod,  or  his  General  As- 
sembly, to  say  he  has  found  certain  things  in 
the  Confession  of  Faith  which  are  not  in 
accordance  with  the  Word  of  God,  and  to 
prove,  if  he  may,  that  that  statement,  or 
those  statements,  are  not  in  accordance  with 
the  Word  of  God. 

The  point  I  wish  to  state  here  is,  that  the 
Confession  of  Faith  is  not  the  final  appeal, 
nor  the  final  judge.     The  Supreme  Judge, 


by  whom  the  controversies  in  religion,  the 
decisions  of  Councils  and  Synods  are  to  be 
regulated,  can  be  and  must  be  none  other 
than  the  voice  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  speaking 
in  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  But  at  the  same 
time,  leaving  that  point  entirely,  I  merely 
refer  to  one  quotation  which  has  been  made 
in  reference  to  the  errors  of  Prof.  Swing.  I 
was  sorry  that  the  quotation  was  made  in 
the  manner  in  which  it  was  made.  I  really 
felt  sadly  when  the  quotation  was  made.  I 
felt  that  I  must  correct  the  knowledge  of  the 
court  in  regard  to  it,  if  it  was  not  sufliciently 
corrected  by  the  reading  of  those  who  heard 
it.  Prof.  Swing,  as  his  words  were  read  by 
a  distinguished  professor,  whom  I  have  come 
to  respect  very  highly,  though  but  very 
slightly  personally  acquainted  with  him,  in 
his  very  able  argument  this  morning,  quo- 
ted Prof.  Swing  as  saying,  "All  definitions 
of  it" — that  is,  of  faith — "as  being  a  belief  ■ 
in  things  not  well  known,  or  belief  in  testi- 
mony, or  in  doctrines  hard  to  understand, 
are  wasted  words,"  and  there  the  quotation, 
as  read,  ended.  Prof.  Swing  does  say  :  "All 
definitions  of  it,  as  being  a  belief  in  things 
not  well  known,  or  a  belief  in  testimony,  or 
in  doctrines  hard  to  understand,  are  wasted 
words  for  children,  to  whom  no  doctrine  is 
different,"  &c. 

I  confess  that  I  was  astonished  when  I 
heard  those  words  quoted.  The  8th  chapter 
of  Komans,  the  statements  of  Paul,  if  given 
only  to  children,  are  wasted  words. 

Mr.  Moderator,  under  the  first  Charge,  I 
have  to  say,  that  this  Presbytery  are  not 
called  upon  to  pronounce  upon  the  absolute 
faithfulness  of  Prof.  Swing,  but  upon  the 
question  whether  he  is  proved  to  be  unfaith- 
ful. The  respondent  is  not  obliged  to  show 
that  he  has  been  faithful,  but  only  to  rebut 
evidence  of  his  unfaithfulness.  He  is  not  at 
all  called  upon  to  disprove  the  allegations, 
but  only  to  disprove  and  rebut  the  evidence 
adduced  in  support  of  the  allegations.  So 
far  as  he  has  gone  further  than  this,  and  dis- 
proved the  Charge  and  the  allegations  under 
it  by  valid  evidence,  then  he  has  proved  his 
general  faithfulness  ;  and  the  rebuttal  is  all 
the  more  overwhelming.  A  man  charged 
with  vagrancy  may  disprove  the  proof  of  his 
loafing  about  the  street,  or  street  corners, 
during  certain  hours,  on  the  one  hand,  or  he 
may  prove  that  he  has  been  constantly  at 
work,  in  one  factory,  during  the  time  alleg- 
ed.    It  must  require  the  most  positive  and 


238 


THE  TRIAL  OF  REV.  DAVID  SWING. 


weighty  proof  to  establish  so  general  a 
charge  as  that  of  breach  of  ordination  vows 
by  unfaithfulness.  If  it  were  allowed  that 
the  President  of  the  United  States  should  be 
impeached  on  a  general  charge  of  his  viola- 
tion of  his  oath  of  office,  it  would  make  it 
easy  to  frame  articles  of  impeachment,  but 
none  the  less  difficult  to  prove  so  general  a 
charge.  One  word  in  regard  to  the  proof 
adduced  of  the  vagueness  of  statement,  and 
of  phraseology,  such  as  Unitarians  and 
others  may  use.  Mr.  Moderator,  I  listened 
to  the  eloquent  Unitarian,  Dr.  Dewey,  at 
one  time, — and  he  used  words  precisely 
these,  as  I  now  remember  :  "We  Unitarians 
believe  in  the  Divinity  of  Christ.  I  may  go 
higher,  and  say  that  we  Unitarians  believe 
in  the  deity  of  Christ ;  and,  if  it  be  possible, 
I  will  go  still  higher,  and  say  we  believe 
that  Jesus  Christ  is  God."  I  merely  adduce 
this  to  show  how  utterly  impossible  it  is  for 
an  evangelical  clergyman  to  use  words 
which  a  Unitarian  might  not  use.  It  is 
true.  Dr.  Dewey  afterwards  began  to  say  there 
was  a  spark  of  the  Divine  in  every  human 
being ;  but  the  terms  then  used  were  the  high- 
est terms  which  evangelical  ministers  use. 


OPINION   OF   RET.   W.    T.    BROWN. 

Mr.  Moderator  :  As  this  matter  is  to  be 
finally  settled,  not  by  speeches,  but  by  votes, 
and  as  the  vote  of  the  youngest  and  least  im- 
portant member  of  the  Presbytery  has  just 
the  same  weight  as  that  of  the  most  learned 
and  most  venerable,  I  have  endeavored  to 
prepare  myself  to  be  able  to  vote  upon  this 
question  intelligently  and  conscientiously ; 
and  in  looking  over  the  charges  and  specifica- 
tions, as  written,  I  have  found  it  necessary  to 
settle,  for  myself,  some  definite  principle  upon 
which  I  could  so  conscientiously  vote.'  And, 
without  making- any  speech,  I  would  simply 
read  that  principle,  as  I  settled  upon  it,  on 
Saturday  night,  after  all  the  argument  was 
in,  as  follows :  I  feel  it  necessary  to  vote  on 
each  specification  in  its  moral  sense,  as  im- 
plying or  not  implying  the  guilt  charged  on 
the  accused. 


OPINION   OF   REV.   J.    B.   M'CLURE. 

Mr.  Moderator  :  I  shall  vote  for  the  acquit- 
tal of  Prof.  Swing.  I  shall  vote  for  his  ac- 
quittal under  both  of  the  charges,  and  under 
all  of  the  specifications.  I  shall  do  it  because 
I  believe  him  to  be  a  Presbyterian ;  because, 
I  may  say,  I  know  him  to  be  such,  and  know 


him  to  be  evangelical,  and  orthodox,  and  a, 
minister  who  is  faithful,  and  whomi believe, 
to-day,  to  be  one  of  the  first  ministers  in  the 
land,  and  who  is  yet  destined  to  be  one  of 
the  greatest  men  in  the  whole  Christian 
world.  I  shall  do  it  because  I  believe  these 
charges  to  be  false ;  because  1  believe  them 
to  have  been  largely  impelled  by  the  spirit  of 
jealousy  ;  because  they  have  not  been  proven 
on  this  floor,  and  because  of  other  things 
which  I  will  not  say  at  this  time. 

I  desire  to  preface  what  I  may  say  in  re- 
gard to  my  relations  with  Prof.  Swing  with 
the  remark,  that  he  has  not  chosen  rne,  but  I 
have  chosen  him  ;  and  that,  somehow,  I  have 
been  so  fortunate  within  the  last  six  years  as 
to  have  been  thrown  with  him  in  very  inti- 
mate relations  ;  first,  in  connection  with  the 
Northwestern  Presbyterian,  when  his  study 
was  only  across  the  hall  from  the  office.  I 
do  not  say  he  was  connected  with  that  paper, 
but  I  say  it  was  very  convenient  for  the  Pro- 
fessor to  step  into  our  office  about  every  day 
to  discuss  frequently  these  great  doctrines  of 
Presbyterianism.  This  happened  some  five 
01  six  years  ago,  when  we  were  adjusted  in 
this  way,  and  I  desire  to  say  that,  in  all  that 
time,  the  Professor  always  seemed  to  be  de- 
lighted to  come  into  the  office,  and  to  dis- 
cuss the  great  doctrines  of  religion  ;  and 
never  in  a  single  instance  have  I  known  him 
to  disagree  with  that  kind  of  Presbyterian- 
ism that  has  been  announced  here,  in  the 
person  of  the  Rev.  R.  W.  Patterson.  And, 
sir,  when  the  chief  editor  of  that  paper  was 
gone — I  refer  to  the  Rev.  Dr.  Erskine — it 
was  my  delight  to  go  and  call  upon  Prof. 
Swing,  and  to  have  him  write  an  article  for 
the  paper,  which  I  did  frequently.  It  was 
there,  in  those  relations,  that  I  found  out,  in 
my  first  meetings  with  this  man,  what  Prof. 
Swing  was.  And  from  that  day  to  this — 
and  I  desire  to  declare  it  before  this  body — 
I  have  always  sought  in  the  various  papers 
in  this  town,  (and  I  have  been  connected 
with  a  number  of  them,)  I  have  always 
sought  to  publish  everything  about  Prof. 
Swing  that  I  could  possibly  ;  and  I  have  done 
it  because  I  believed  him  to  be  an  Evan- 
gelical minister,  a  Presbyterian  minister,  a 
man  who  was  faithful  in  the  discharge  of  his 
duties.  Prof.  Swing,  as  you  all  know,  is 
now  connected  with  the  Alliance,  and  in  this 
way  I  am  thrown  with  him  from  day  to  day. 
I  desire  to  say  that,  in  all  relationships  in 
this  connection,  I  have  found  him  to  be  any- 


KEY.  J.  H.  TAYLOE'S  OPIlSriON. 


239 


thing  else  than  what  these  charges  and  speci- 
fications declare.  The  history  of  the  Alli- 
ance, in  part,  covers  the  history  of  these  ac- 
cusations, and  I  may  say  that,  time  and 
again,  when  I  have  seen  these  articles  in 
The  Inierior,  and  since  these  charges  have 
been  made,  I  have  privately  conversed  with 
Prof.  Swing  upon  these  points  ;  and  he  has 
told  me  that  they  were  all  lies.  I  offered  to 
quote  extracts  from  his  sermons  in  the  papers 
that  would  make  him  stand  before  the  world, 
saying  that  Christ  was  divine,  and  saying 
that  he  believed  in  faith  in  Christ  as  essential 
to  salvation,  and  showing  him  to  be  a  Pres- 
byterian, and  not  a  Unitarian;  and  then  he 
said  it  was  all  a  lie — but  I  might  quote  what- 
ever I  pleased. 

I  may  say  that  in  all  of  these  conversa- 
tions he  has  told  me,  point-blank,  that  he  did 
believe  that  faith  in  Jesus  Christ  is  essential 
to  salvation  ;  that  he  did  believe  in  the  deity 
of  Christ,  and  that  he  did  believe  in  the 
Trinity  of  the  Godhead.  I  have  asked  him 
these  questions.  He  has  answered  these 
questions.  He  has  conversed  about  them 
without  any  asking,  and  in  every  instance, 
I  may  say,  Mr.  Moderator,  he  has  answered 
in  the  affirmative,  attesting  to  me  that  he  is 
a  gentleman  and  a  Christian  against  whom, 
sir,  these  charges  are  utterly  false. 

Now,  it  is  because,  as  I  said  in  the  first 
place,  of  these  relations  which  I  have  sus- 
tained with  Prof.  Swing,  knowing  him  as  I 
do,  because  he  has  made  those  declarations 
so  frequently  and  earnestly  to  me,  that  I 
shall  vote  against  these  charges.  I  desire  to 
say  this  ;  That  the  one  peculiarity  of  Prof. 
Swing's  preaching,  as  he  has  said  to  me,  is 
that  he  makes  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  a 
specialty.  If  you  will  read  his  sermons 
carefully,  you  will  find  them,  every  one, 
bearing  on  Christ.  You  will  see  that  he 
finds  his  perfect  man  in  Christ ;  that  he  finds 
his  perfect  God  in  Christ ;  and  in  this  way  he 
always  makes  Him  the  central  figure  in  his 
sermons.  That  is  the  great  doctrine  of  his 
preaching.  I  believe  that  no  man  in  this 
denomination  preaches  Jesus  Christ  more 
truly  than  Prof.  Swing.  We  may  not  all 
believe  it  at  this  hour,  but  I  do  believe  that 
the  time  will  come,  and  it  will  speedily  come, 
when  it  will  be  acknowledged,  not  only  in 
this  town  by  us,  but  by  the  whole  country, 
that  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  has  no  better 
friend,  has  no  truer  friend,  and  a  man  work- 


ing more  faithfully  and  more  earnestly  for 
Him  than  Prof.  Swing. 


OPINION  OF  REV.  J.  H.  TATLOR. 

Mr.  Moderator:  I  entered  upon  this  trial 
in  as  impartial  and  simply  judicial  state  of 
mind  as  I  can  conceive  possible.  I  have 
long  loved  Prof.  Swing,  and  believed  in  his 
honesty,  though  not  approving  of  all  he  said, 
and  seemed  to  believe.  Prof.  Patton  had  re- 
cently been  in  my  pulpit,  and  there  gained  a 
new  hold  on  my  mind  and  heart,  as  a  man 
of  eminent  ability  and  Christian  spirit — a 
brother  to  be  loved.  The  preferment  of 
these  Charges  filled  me  with  sorrow ;  for 
they  were  grave  enough,  if  sustained,  to  sink 
the  accused  in  hopeless  infamy.  And  yet, 
the  cool  certainty  of  the  accuser,  and  my 
confidence  in  him,  pressed  down  upon  me  the 
conviction  that  he  must  be  sure  of  incontro- 
vertible evidence.  But  having  given  my  en- 
tire time,  and  most  careful  attention  to  the 
case,  for  all  these  days,  I  am  obliged  to  con- 
fess that  the  whole  afi^air  has  assumed  the 
aspect  of  a  great  bubble,  which  has  finally 
burst,  and  left  nothing  but  a  cold  drop  of 
surprise  and  sorrow  that  these  charges  should 
ever  have  been  framed  and  entertained. 

I  find  just  nothing,  in  either  the  oral  or 
documentary  evidence,  in  proof  of  unfaith- 
fulness to  ordination  vows.  Prof,  Swing 
confesses,  indeed,  that  he  has  slipped  away 
from  certain  former  positions  ;  but  then  he 
limits  that  slipping  away  by  the  latitude  of 
interpretation  allowed  in  the  former  New 
School  branch,  as  he  says.  Vague,  ambigu- 
ous, and  dangerous  language — granting  that 
it  has  been  used — does  not  prove  the  charges, 
because  vagueness,  ambiguity,  or  dangerous- 
ness  has  not  been  proven  by  testimony. 

His  methods  of  treatment,  and  modes  of 
speech,  seem  rather — the  more  we  read  his 
sermons — to  evince  unusual  care  to  be  faith- 
ful to  what  he  believes  to  be  the  truth,  and 
the  best  ways  of  putting  it.  Not  one  doc- 
trine, concerning  which  defection  is  alleged 
against  Prof.  Swing,  is  necessarily  contra- 
vened by  any  statement  that  I  have  yet 
found  in  his  writings.  Not  one  is  ridiculed. 
Eidicule  is  employed  in  such  connection,  I 
admit ;  but  always,  as  I  understand  him,  at 
some  exaggeration  of  the  doctrine — not  at 
the  doctrine  itself.  All  that  is  peculiar,  in 
his    methods  of   treatment  and  statement; 


240 


THE  TKIAL  OF  REV.  DAVID  SWING. 


seems  to  me  allowable  on  one  or  afnother  of 
the  following  grounds : 

First,  His  intellectual  habits  and  literary 
tastes. 

Second,  The  right  of  individual  judgment, 
as  to  how  often,  and  how  formal,  the  formu- 
lated doctrines  of  the  church  shall  be  trans- 
ferred to  the  pulpit. 

Third.  More  latitude  in  the  interpretation 
of  standards  than  has  formerly  been  allowed. 

Fourth.  On  the  ground  of  his  reiterated 
averment  that,  by  his  language  and  methods, 
he  does  mean  to  teach  the  evangelical  doc- 
trines, adding  that  he  uses  the  word  "evan- 
gelical" in  the  usual  sense. 

In  the  absence  of  positive  testimony  to 
offset  these  averments,  and  as  he  is  not 
charged  with  being  a  liar,  it  is  not  just 
to  assume  that  he  speaks  falsely  ;  and  with- 
out that  assumption  I  find  not  how  to  sus- 
tain these  charges.  This  was  written  on 
last  Sabbath  evening,  before  anything  was 
heard  from  the  opinion  of  voters.  I  have  a 
few  additional  notes  hero  that  I  would  like 
to  enlarge  upon,  in  connection  with  some 
suggestions  made  to-day. 

It  has  been  said  by  one  brother  that  loyal- 
ty to  the  Presbyterian  Church  demands  that 
our  standards  be  accepted  by  the  ministers, 
and  the  members  of  our  churches.  Prof. 
Patton,  when  in  my  pulpit,  preached  a  very 
excellent  sermon  ;  and  in  that  sermon  he  very 
specifically,  and  very  much  to  my  delight, 
said  that  persons  coming  into  our  churches 
should  not  be  required  to  give  their  assent  to 
our  Confession  of  Faith. 

Prof.  Patton. — That  is  still  my  opinion. 
I  adhere  to  that  opinion. 

Rev.  .Mr.  Taylor. — Yes,  sir.  And  if  it 
should  happen  that  Prof.  Halsey  should  ac- 
cuse Prof.  Patton  of  heresy  on  this  point,  I 
should  have  to  defend  Prof.  Patton.  It  has, 
again,  been  suggested  or  said  to  us  here — 
and  quotations  have  been  read  to  the  point — 
that  Thomas  Smythe  did  not  believe  that 
John  Calvin  believed  in  infant  damnation. 

Rev.  Dr.  Halsey. — He  said  Elders  and  not 
members. 

Rev.  Mr.  Taylor. — I  understood  you  to 
say  members.  I  am  sorry  to  have  the  wind 
taken  out  of  my  sails,  but  let  it  go.  Thomas 
Smythe  says,  according  to  quotations  read 
this  morning,  that  Calvin  did  not  believe  in 
infant  damnation. 

I  wish  Prof.  Halsey  had  come  down  a  lit- 
tle nearer  to  modern  times,  and  quoted  from 


Mr.  Shufeldt's  testimony,  wherein  he  swore 
distinctly  that,  in  his  estimation,  the  whole 
drift  of  Prof.  Swing's  much-talked-of  letter 
to  him  was  a  defense  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  and  not  a  ridicule  of  it.  Again, 
the  import  of  the  expression  quoted  from 
Prof.  Swing,  natura  naturaus,  was  declared 
to  be  that  Prof.  Swing  did  not  believe  in  de- 
pravity. The  point  in  connection  with  it  is, 
that  Prof.  Swing  was  referring  to  the  holy 
nature  of  Adam,  and  not  to  the  unholy  na^ 
ture  of  us  ministers. 

Again,  it  was  suggested,  in  some  of  these 
remarks,  that  we  are  not  to  allow  this  argu- 
ment to  have  force,  namely  that  Prof.  Swing 
be  judged  by  the  Bible — that  his  preaching, 
or   teaching,  is  to  be  judged  by  the  Bible, 
rather  than  by  our  standards.     My  answer 
to  that  is,  that  the  Bible,  certainly,  should 
be  regarded  as  a  very  respectable  comment- 
ary upon  the  Confession  of  Faith.     The  fact 
that  Prof.  Swing  does  not  preach  dogmatic- 
ally or   polemically,  will   seem    to   explain 
Dr.  Swazey's  suggestion  to  the  effect  that  he 
has  much  more  influence,  probably,  over  in- 
fidels, than  any  other   minister  in  the  city. 
I  want  to  add  that  a  gentleman  has  said  to 
me,  within  a  few  days,  that,  seven  years  ago, 
he   was   an   infidel,   and   that   very  largely 
through   Prof.    Swing's   preaching,    he   has 
adopted   the   Christian   faith,   and  loves  it. 
And  this  is  right  in  connection  with  some- 
thing else  of  my  own  experience,  and  which 
bears  upon  the  point  of  omitting  some  of  our 
doctrines.     I  once  fell  in  with  a  man  who 
was  a  notorious  infidel — a  scofler  at  religion. 
I  knew  he  was,  before  I  approached  him  ; 
and,   in   approaching  him,   he   said   to  me, 
"So  you  are   a   Presbyterian  minister,  are 
you  ?  "  Tes,  sir,"  said  I.    "And  you  believe 
in  predestination,  do  you?"     Said  I,  "  No 
matter  about  predestination, — let  that  go." 
"  Well,  you   believe   in   the   Trinity,  don't 
you?"  Said  I,  "Let  the  Trinity  go."  "Well, 
you  believe  that,  no  matter  how  many  good 
works  a  man  can  do,  that  won't  help  him  to 
heaven?"     Said  I,  "No  matter  about  good 
works  or  salvation,   I'll  let  them  go."     And 
then  I  said,  "The  question,  my  fellow-man, 
is,   whether  you  believe  you   are  a  wicked 
man,  and  need  God's  forgiveness," — and  he 
listened  to  me. 

Now,  I  believe  that  sort  of  idea  is  just 
what  runs  right  through  Prof.  Swing's 
preaching.  He  let  some  of  these  things  go, 
for  the  jsresent.     I  should  not  think  it  fair 


EEV.  BEN.  E.  S.  ELY'S  OPINION. 


241 


at  all,  if  somebody,  who  might  have  over- 
heard that  conversation,  should  arraign  me 
for  denying  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  and 
all  that. 


OPINION    OF    REV.    BEN.    E.    S.    ELY. 

Mr.  Moderator  :  At  this  late  hour  when  we 
are  all  wearied  out  and  when  our  minds  have 
been  confused  by  a  multitude  of  words,  I  do 
not  propose  to  make  a  speech. 

There  are  some  things  however,  that  strike 
my  mind  with  force  and  govern  me  in  mak- 
ing up  my  opinion  upon  this  case.  Although 
we  have  heard  a  great  deal  about  construc- 
tion and  a  learned  Professor  has  even  in- 
timated in  his  speech  that  our  standards  and 
constitution  have  but  little  to  do  with  this 
case;  I  believe  they  furnish  the  only  rules 
bj'  which  we  can  be  governed  in  our  decision. 
The  simple  question  presented  for  our  con- 
sideration is,  whether  the  accused  is  guilty 
or  not  guilty  as  he  stands  before  us  under  the 
law  as  we  have  it  in  our  constitution  ? 

Sir,  by  what  authority  does  this  Court  have 
an  existence  as  a  Court  of  our  Church,  ex- 
cepting under  the  constitution?  "What  power 
has  the  Presbytery  excepting  that  which  is 
conferred  by  that  constitution  and,  what 
is  the  power  thus  conferred  ?  To  sit  here 
in  judgment  upon  the  very  law  of  which 
it  is  a  creature  ?  To  determine  whether  the 
standards  of  the  church  are  right  or  wrong  ? 
To  determine  whether  we  may  receive  into 
our  Presbyteries  any  minister  who  simply 
preaches  the  Bible,  as  a  learned  Professor, 
who  is  teaching  our  young  prophets  says? 
No,  sir,  the  terms  upon  which  this  Presby- 
tery is  to  receive  candidates  for  the  ministry 
are  laid  down  in  that  law,  and  the  conditions 
upon  which  a  minister  is  to  hold  his  office 
are  set  forth  in  that  law,  and  by  that  law 
we  must  be  governed  in  the  decision  of  this 
case. 

Gentlemen  say  there  is  a  difference  in  con- 
struing that  law,  and  that  this  prosecution  is 
but  a  bubble  bursting  and  leaving  but  a  cold 
drop.  Why  is  it  then  that  the  learning  and 
ingenuity  of  the  most  learned  and  honored 
of  our  brethren  have  been  exercised  to  their 
utmost  in  the  endeavor  to  defeat,  as  I 
humbly  believe,  the  right.  They  say:  "with 
the  Old  and  the  New,  there  is  a  difierence  of 
construction."  Sir,  I  am  ready  to  accept  the 
construction  placed  upon  that  law  by  the 
New  School  Assembly  and  say  to  this  body, 
''Brethren,  decide  upon  the  guilt  or  inno- 


cence of  the  accused  by  the  rule  of  construc- 
tion placed  upon  tlie  standards  by  the  New 
School."  Whilst  I  sympathize  with  the  de- 
fendant, (and  I  do,  God  knows) — whilst  I 
sympathize  with  the  defendant,  and  whilst  I 
repudiate  the  idea  that  I  have  any  personal 
feelings  of  enmity,  or  that  in  finding  him 
guilty,  we  thereby  make  him  a  liar  and  sub- 
ject to  a  moral  turpitude  that  some  brethren 
intimate  that  his  conviction  would  involve; 
whilst  I  respect  him  and  do  not  impugn  his 
moral  integrity;  I  do  not  believe  that  he  re- 
ceives and  accepts  the  Confession  of  Faith 
and  its  doctrines  in  the  New  School  sense. 

Now,  Sir,  we  differ  in  opinion  honestly  as 
to  what  the  New  School  interpretation  of 
the  creed  is.  We  differ  honestly  as  to  what 
the  interpretation  of  the  word  "Evangelical" 
is  ;  and  it  is  not  because  I  impugn  the  hon- 
esty of  the  defendant  that  I  say,  I  do  not  be- 
lieve that  he  does  receive  and  accept  the 
Confession  of  Faith  as  construed  by  the  New 
School. 

Sir,  it  has  been  intimated  that  the  prose- 
cutor, and  those  who  stand  behind  him,  are 
all  Old  School  men  ;  and  there  has  been  an 
attempt  on  the  part  of  the  defense  to  hide 
itself  beneath  the  wing  of  the  New  School, 
and  this  shows  the  weakness  of  their  case. 
We  have  been  reminded  of  the  fact  that  our 
learned  and  venerable  father  (Dr.  Patterson) 
was  one  of  the  leaders  of  the  New  School,  and 
a  member  of  the  Keunion  Committee  ;  we 
have  heard  this  rung  in  our  ears,  and  have 
been  told  that  all  who  stand  behind  the  pros- 
ecutor are  Old  School  men. 

Sir,  in  my  own  case,  although  ordained  in 
the  Old  School  Church,  I  am  reminded  of  the 
words  of  the  Apostle  Paul  when  he  said,  "If 
any  man  thinketh  that  he  hath  whereof  he 
might  triist  in  the  flesh,  I  more  :  circumcis- 
ed the  eighth  day  of  the  stock  of  Israel,  of 
the  tribe  of  Benjamin,  a  Hebrew  of  the  He- 
brews." Baptized  in  the  New  School  Church, 
I,  the  son  of  one  who  was  the  particular 
friend  and  defender  of  Albert  Barnes,  the 
man,  sir,  to  whom  Dr.  Bayard  attributes  the 
authorship  of  the  article  that  finally  led  to 
the  separation  of  the  two  Churches;  the 
man,  sir,  who  was  Moderator  of  the  General 
Assembly  in  1828,  and  afterwards  Stated 
Clerk ;  the  man  who  edited  the  Philadel- 
pliian  for  nine  years,  a  representative  man 
and  one  of  the  leaders  of  the  New  School — I 
stand  here  as  his  son,  and  I  wish  to  quote 
from  his    words    as  a    representative    New 


242 


THE  TEIAL  OF  KEV.  DAVID  SWING. 


School  man,  that  1  may  put  his  sermons  be- 
side the  sermons  that  have  here  been  read 
upon  Justification  by  Faith  and  imputed  right- 
eousness. When  you  have  heard  his  utter- 
ances, tell  me  whether  the  trumpet  that 
Bounded  from  the  pulpit  of  the  old  Pine 
street  church,  and  from  the  successor  of  Al- 
exander and  Milledollar,  and  the  predeces- 
sor of  Brainard  and  Allen,  sounds  as  the 
trumpet  does  when  we  hear  it  from  McVick- 
er's  Theatre  ? 

Now,  Sir,  I  wish  to  make  up  our  opinion 
in  this  case  as  to  the  soundness  of  Professor 
Swing  upon  the  doctrine  of  Justification  by 
Faith,  as  that  doctrine  is  set  forth  by  a  rep- 
resentative man  of  the  New  School.  I  ask 
you  to  compare  the  sermon  I  hold  in  my 
hand  with  Professor  Swing's  sermon  on 
Faith  as  it  was  fairly  presented  by  Dr. 
Halsey.  Now,  sir,  read  from  this  represen- 
tative man:  "This  life  (divine  life)  is  com- 
menced by  justification  and  continued  by 
sanctiflcation  ;  and  one  who  is  without  these 
blessings,  has  never  seen  life,  but  the  wrath 
of  God  abideth  on  him.  By  that  act  of  our 
Maker,  in  which  He  accounts  us  just,  we  are 
justified,  and  our  state  is  instantly  changed, 
so  that,  from  being  the  moment  before  dead, 
we  become  alive,  in  law.  The  sentence  of 
death  is,  by  justification,  removed,  and  we 
accepted  as  righteous  in  the  sight  of  the 
Judge.  He  accounts  us  righteous  because  we 
are  legally  righteous,  and  He  imputes  right- 
eousness to  us  because  it  is  '  our  righteous- 
ness.' If  it  were  not  ours  it  would  not  be 
counted  so.  Neither  should  we  be  judicially 
pronounced  just,  had  we  not  perfectly  satis- 
fied the  claims  of  justice  upon  us.  Our  right- 
eousness, however,  is  not  of  our  own  per- 
forming, and  in  our  own  persons  we  neither 
have  satisfied  the  divine  law  or  eveT  should 
answer  all  its  demands.  Our  righteousness 
was  wrought  by  Christ,  and  the  satisfaction 
given  to  Justice  for  our  numerous  crimes 
was  rendered  by  Him.  This  righteousness 
becomes  ours  by  our  being  united  to  Christ. 
This  union  is  effected  by  faith."  That  is  the 
language  of  a  representative  New  School 
man  upon  the  doctrine  of  Justification  ;  but 
sir,  we  shall  be  told,  I  expect,  that  New 
School  doctrines,  historical,  are  diflFerent  from 
New  School  doctrines,  actual.  Perhaps  my 
learned  father  will  say  :  "  The  world  moves." 
It  does.  But,  sir,  if  there  is  a  difference  be- 
tween New  School  theology  actual,  and 
New  School  theology  historical,  who  is  to  de- 


cide ?  Upon  whom  shall  we  call  ?  Dr. 
Swazey  said — and  I  think  he  said  truly — that 
Professor  Swing  was  neither  a  New  School 
Presbyterian  nor  an  Old  School  Presbyterian, 
but  siii  generis ;  and  if  he  is  neither  an  Old, 
nor  a  New  School  Presbyterian,  in  the  name 
of  my  Master  what  kind  of  a  Presbyterian 
is  he? 

Now,  sir,  the  question  is  not  whether  Pro- 
fessor Swing  is  an  evangelical  preacher,  but 
whether  he  is  a  Presbyterian.  Professor 
Blackburn  says  we  might  admit  to  our  pulpit 
any  man  who  preaches  the  Bible.  Will  my 
brother  deny  that  our  Methodist  brethren — 
God  bless  them,  for  I  love  them  if  I  am  or- 
thodox— j)reach  the  Bible  ? 

Rev.  Dr.  Blackburn:  Will  you  bless  me 
too? 

Rev.  Mr.  Ely :  Yes,  sir  ;  and  I  bless  you  all. 

Rev.  Dr.  Blackburn  :  I  rise  to  explain — 

Rev.  Mr.  Ely:  I  have  only  a  few  minutes 
more,  and  I  hope  you  will  not  interrupt  me. 

Now,  sir,  under  Mr.  Swing's  Confession  of 
Faith,  we  might  admit  any  Methodist  brother, 
or  Arminian.  Are  we  ready  to  do  that  ? 
Certainly  not.  And  then  with  regard  to  the 
question  of  interpretation,  why  Sir,  I  am 
frank  to  say  that  if  it  were  not  for  the  light 
that  I  obtained  from  the  answer  of  Mr. 
Swing,  and  his  argument  upon  this  case,  I 
might  be  in  doubt  as  to  the  evidence  ;  but 
construing  the  evidence  in  the  case  in  the 
light  of  his  answer,  in  which  he  evidently 
does  not  declare  his  adhesion  to  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith  as  received  by  our  Church, 
I  am  bound  to  believe  that  these  doubtful 
expressions  are  used  intelligently  and  pur- 
posely as  setting  forth  his  doctrine.  But  we 
are  told  that  there  are  authorities  to  be  de- 
rived from  the  sermons  on  both  sides  ;  and  I 
confess  that  in  this  case  I  have  been  reminded 
of  a  certain  political  snake  that  I  once  heard 
of,  that — 

■    "  Wired  in  and  wired  out 

And  left  the  people  still  in  doubt 
Whether  the  snaky,  making  the  track, 
Was  going  south  or  coining  back." 

And  it  does  seem  to  me  that  Prof.  Swing 
— although  I  do  not  mean  any  invidious 
comparison — has  "wired  in  and  wired  out" 
between  the  doctrines  of  Unitarianism,  the 
evolution,  moral  suasion  theory,  and  the 
doctrines  of  our  church,  until  it  would  take 
even  a  more  skillful  man  than  Daniel  Webster 
to  tell  whether  he  was  going  from  the  Pres- 
byterian church  or  coming  back. 


KEY.  BEN.  E.  S.  ELY'S  OPINION. 


243 


Sir,  the  evidence  proves  that  his  trumpet 
gives  an  uncertain  sound,  and  in  such  a  case 
how  are  we  to  determine  ?  The  question  is 
whether  Prof.  Swing  holds  to  certain  Unita- 
rian doctrines.  Here  is  a  minister  who  quotes 
an  evangelical  passage  from  Mr.  Swing.  "We 
admit  it  to  be  evangelical.  Here  is  a  brother 
that  quotes  another  passage  that  is  not  evan- 
gelical and  is  heretical.  How  then  are  we 
to  determine  ?  Simply  by  the  general  drift, — 
simply  by  the  indications  we  find  of  his 
system  of  theologj-.  It  is  not  preaching  in 
a  Unitarian  chapel  alone.  It  is  not  even 
mentioning  the  matter  of  the  Trinity  in  a 
light  way.  It  is  not  one  particular  utter- 
ance. It  is  not  because  he  defines  faith  as 
Unitarians  do  ;  but  when  you  come  to  take 
all  these  things  in  their  accumulated  form  it 
leaves  no  doubt  upon  the  mind,  so  far  as  I 
am  concerned,  that  Mr.  Swing  does  lean  to 
what  is  called  Unitarian  or  Liberal  religion. 

I  am  very  much  obliged  to  the  brethren 
for  their  kindness,  and  I  would  say  this  in 
reference  to  Mr.  Swing's  articles  of  faith :  I 
think  that  no  one  can  doubt  for  a  minute  but 
that,  in  all  honesty  and  in  all  sincerity  in 
the  answer,  he  intended  us  to  believe  that  he 
did  not  receive  and  accept  the  doctrines  of 
the  church  as  formulated,  when  he  says  that 
he  receives  them  in  the  New  School  sense, 
and  then  qualifies  it  bj'  saying  that  he  re- 
ceives them  in  an  evangelical  sense.  I  do 
not  mean  to  impugn  his  honesty.  I  simply 
say  that  we  have  a  difference  of  opinion  as 
to  what  the  New  School  sense  is  and  as  to 
what  the  Evangelical  sense  is. 

Now,  sir,  with  regard  to  the  doctrines  of 
inspiration,  will  it  be  held  by  any  member 
upon  this  floor  that  Mr.  Swing  holds  the 
doctrines  of  inspiration  and  teaches  them  as 
they  were  held  by  the  New  School  body  ? 
Sir,  do  you  suppose  the  New  School  Assem- 
bly ever  would  endorse  the  sentiment  that 
God  had  inspired  a  bad  law,  that  He,  who 
cannot  look  upon  sin  with  the  least  degree  of 
allowance,  tolerated  sin  and  cruelty  in  the 
Jew? 

Sir,  in  his  answer,  did  the  accused  make  it 
any  better  ?  On  the  contrary,  he  repeated  in 
substance  the  very  doctrines  that  had  been 
set  forth  in  his  published  articles.  Then, 
Sir,  taking  the  whole  drift  of  his  teaching, 
not  selecting  one  thing  here,  and  another 
there,  but  viewing  his  system  as  a  whole,  as 
indicated  by  his  salient  points,  in  all  his  ser- 
mons,  can  we  believe  that  he  understands 


the  word  "  evangelical "  as  we  understand  it, 
or  not? 

Further  than  that,  sir,  he  could  have  an- 
swered this  charge  in  such  a  manner  as 
would  not  have  left  a  doubt  upon  the  minds 
of  any  of  this  Presbytery.  And,  sir,  I  did 
earnestly  hope  at  the  beginning  of  this  trial 
and  when  I  saw  him  take  the  stand  here — I 
did  earnestly  hope  that  he  would  answer  that 
he  received  each  one  of  the  articles  set  forth 
in  the  specifications,  and  would  say,  "  I  do 
receive  and  accept  the  doctrine  of  Justifica- 
tion as  set  forth  in  the  standards ;  I  do  re- 
ceive the  Canon  of  Scriptures  as  set  forth  in 
the  standards,  and  acknowledge  its  authority. 
I  do  accept  the  doctrine  of  the  plenary  In- 
spiration of  the  Scriptures  as  held  by  the 
Presbyterian  Church. 

This,  sir,  would  have  put  to  silence  this 
case,  at  least  so  far  as  one  charge  is  con- 
cerned, and  we  would  have  been  willing — 
and  I  have  no  doubt  that  no  one  would  be 
more  willing  to  receive  this  straightforward 
avowal  than  the  prosecutor  himself. 

Dr.  Blackburn  in  his  speech  intimated 
that  we  were  not  to  take  this  into  considera- 
tion. I  beg  to  differ  with  him;  for  there  is 
a  difference  between  a  proceeding  of  this 
kind  and  a  criminal  proceeding  strictly  so- 
called,  and  it  is  presumed,  that  in  cases  of 
this  kind,  that  the  defendant  can  categoric- 
ally ex  animo  declare  his  sentiments  in  refer- 
ence to  the  matters  specified,  that  he  will 
specifically  deny  and  affirm. 

This  might  have  been  done,  sir,  but  Mr. 
Swing  was  too  honest  in  my  opinion  to  do  it. 
He  did  not  specifically  atfirm  or  deny.  "What 
did  he  say  in  his  answer  about  faith  ?  He 
says  "  salvation  by  an  obedient  faith  through 
a  mediator — "  and  that  might  be  said  by  any 
one  who  ignored  the  use  of  faith  in  justifica- 
tion. "We  claim  that  there  are  two  uses  of 
faith,  one  for  justification  and  the  other  for 
sanctification  ;  but  there  is  not  such  a  dis- 
tinction as  this  made'  in  the  answer,  and, 
therefore,  I  am  bound  to  infer  that  the  speci- 
fications in  this  particular  are  sustained  by 
the  evidence,  because  the  answer  does  not 
specifically  deny  the  heresy  or  affirm  the 
doctrine. 

Sir,  if  he  had  simply  said,  using  the  words 
of  the  standards,  "  I  do  receive  these  doc- 
trines," naming  them,  it  would  not  have 
been  for  us  to  enquire  further,  because  we 
do  admit  reasonable  latitude  in  interpreta- 
tion, but  we  do  not  allow  a  minister,  who  is  & 


244 


THE  TRIAL  OF  EEV,  DAVID  SWING. 


standard-bearer  of  the  Presbyterian  church, 
to  deny  in  its  essence  any  one  of  the  funda- 
mental doctrines. 

Mr.  Moderator,  we  have  an  argument  from 
my  beloved  brother.  Dr.  Hurd,  that  sounds 
rather  strange,  with  regard  to  the  Word  of 
God,  and  we  have  rather  a  strange  argument 
from  my  friend  the  professor  (Rev.  Dr. 
Blackburn.)  He  saj's  there  is  a  parallel  be- 
tween the  construction  of  Scripture  and  the 
construction  of  sermons.  I  admit  it,  sir.  I 
admit  that  we  might  take  one  passage  of 
Scripture  without  the  other,  and  misconstrue 
the  word  ;  but  the  beauty  of  the  Scriptures 
is  that  they  are  an  entirety,  that  they  are  a 
revelation  of  God's  will  and  mind  to  man, 
and  because  men  spoke  as  they  were  moved 
by  the  Holy  Ghost,  there  always  is  consisten- 
cy. There  always  is  such  an  assertion  of  the 
whole  truth  that  there  cannot  be  an  implica- 
tion of  wrong  if  you  construe  one  passage 
by  another.  Sir,  you  take  the  doctrines  of 
Christ ;  take  the  very  doctrine  of  Justifica- 
tion, and  we  will  admit  that  you  may  cut 
out  one  verse  from  James  and  say  that  he 
taught  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  works, 
but  we  construe  one  part  by  another.  If  we 
construe  Prof.  Swing's  sermons  in  that  man- 
ner, then  we  arrive  at  a  fair  conclusion.  I 
am  not  to  take  out  an  evangelical  passage 
here,  and  an  evangelical  passage  there,  which 
is  no  more  evangelical  than  thousands  of 
passages  that  I  find  in  Freeman  Clarke,  and 
other  Unitarians,  and  say  that  he  is  sound, 
but  I  am  to  take  a  concordance  of  his  ser- 
mons and  determine  their  general  drift  and 
true  intent.  But  my  friend  Hurd  says  we 
are  to  interpret  these  things  by  the  Scrip- 
ture, and  certainly  we  could  not  ignore  such 
a  method  of  construction.  Certainly  not, 
certainly  not.  But  then  there  is  a  diflfer- 
ence  of  opinion  between  different  churches 
as  to  how  the  Scriptures  are  to  be  interpret- 
ed. We,  as  Presbyterians,  have  agreed  upon  a 
system  by  which  they  are  to  be  interpreted, 
and  therefore  we  cannot  tolerate  in  our  min- 
istry a  man  who  interprets  the  Scriptures  in  a 
manner  antagonistic  to  that  system. 

Mr.  Moderator,  I  have  no  doubt  that  great 
and  important  issues  are  pending  upon  this 
trial.  Should  I  consult  my  own  personal 
feelings,  although  there  are  those,  who, 
carried  away  by  their  prejudices  will  perhaps 
doubt  my  sincerity — should  I  consult  my  own 
personal  feelings  irrespective  of  my  duty  to 
the  Church  and  the  truth   of  God,  I   would 


say  to  Brother  Swing:  "Go  and  sin  no 
more."  But,  sir,  these  are  issues  that  not 
only  affect  the  integrity'  of  our  church  and 
our  distinctive  character  as  Presbyterians,  but 
there  are  issues  that  to  me,  go  far  deeper  than 
this.  Take  from  me  the  doctrine  of  Jus- 
tification by  Faith ;  tell  me  that  I  am  to 
climb  to  heaven  upon  a  mountain  of  good 
works ;  say  to  me,  "  He  only  can  look  for- 
ward with  hope  who  can  sweetly  look  back," 
and  all  my  liupe  of  heaven  is  gone  ;  take  from 
me  the  im]Hited  righteousness  of  Christ  and 
I  have  no  other  ground  upon  which  to  stand, 
and,  therefore,  it  is  that  I  maintain  and  de- 
fend that  blessed  doctrine,  whatever  may  be 
the  consequences.  To  that  doctrine  I  will 
cling  while  life  lasts. 


OPINION  OF  REV.  ARTHUR  MITCHELL. 

I  have  very  little  to  add  to  the  opinions 
already  expressed  by  those  who  seem  to 
favor  Prof,  Swing's  acquittal. 

That  the  defendant  has  occasionally,  in 
the  course  of  his  abundant  and  useful  minis- 
trations, used  language  which  is  obscure  and 
objectionable  from  a  strictly  theological  point 
of  view,  cannot  and  need  not  be  denied. 
This  might  be  said  to  a  greater  or  less  degree 
of  any  of  us.  Some  of  his  utterances,  especi- 
ally upon  the  subject  of  inspiration,  made 
about  a  year  ago,  were  capable  of  being 
widely  misunderstood.  These  things,  how- 
ever, have,  in  my  judgment,  been  so  explain- 
ed upon  other  occasions,  and,  especially  in 
the  course  of  his  defense,  as  to  leave  no 
ground  for  ecclesiastical  censure. 

It  has  abundantly  appeared,  in  the  course 
of  this  trial,  that  it  is  extremely  unsafe  and 
unfair  to  apply  to  the  language  of  popular 
discourse,  the  strict  analysis  of  a  formal 
theology,  much  more,  to  judge  of  this  lan- 
guage in  the  form  of  disconnected  extracts  ; 
and  still  more,  to  enter  upon  the  interpreta- 
tion of  such  extracts — ignoring  the  fact  that 
the  person  uttering  them,  is,  in  this  case,  an 
avowed  Presbyterian,  or,  recognizing  this 
fact,  to  assume  that  his  use  of  language  is  that 
of  an  adroit  or  dishonest  man.  This  much 
as  to  his  teachings. 

What  are  Prof.  Swing's  doctrinal  beliefs  ? 
The  means  of  answering  that  question, 
substantially,  are  at  hand.  It  has  been  re- 
peatedly asked:  "If  Prof.  Swing  receives 
and  adopts  the  Confession,  why  does  he  not 
say  so  ?"     I  reply,  that  he  has.    He  has  done 


KEY.  J.  H.  TROWBEIDGE'S  OPINION. 


245 


it,  "by  !i)s  explicit  denial  of  the  second 
Charge.  What  is  that  Charge  ?  It  is  that 
he  does  not  receive  sincerely  the  Confession. 
Prof.  Swing  rises,  and  denies  the  Charge. 
What  is  this  but  to  affirm,  distinctly  and 
unequivocally,  that  he  does  "sincerely  re- 
ceive and  adopt  the  Confession,  as  contain- 
ing the  system  of  doctrine  taught  in  the 
Scriptures."  It  is  such  an  affirmation,  in 
the  lips  of  any  honest  man.  But  this  is  not 
all.  He  then  also  plainly  asserts,  respecting 
the  particular  doctrines  regarding  which  he 
is  called  in  question,  that  he  holds  them,  and 
that  he  holds  them  in  the  evangelical  sense. 
These  words  can  have  hut  one  meaning,  in 
the  lips  of  a  truthful  man,  such  as  he  is  be- 
lieved to  be.  All  else  that  he  says,  in  his 
declarations,  and  his  sermons,  is  to  be  inter- 
preted in  the  light  of  these  avowals. 

The  distinction  which  he  has  drawn 
between  actual  and  formulated  theology 
wears,  at  first  sight,  a  threatening  look  ;  but 
he  himself  has  made  no  use  of  that  distinc- 
tion inconsistent  with  a  reasonable  inter- 
pretation and  a  sincere  reception  of  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith.  It  is  only  with  his  use  of 
the  distinction  that  we  have  to  deal. 

The  charges  preferred  against  him,  then, 
have,  in  my  judgment  been  met  and 
answered — (1.)  By  his  o\  n  declaration  and 
avowals  before  the  Presbytery  :  (2.)  By  the 
■whole  course  of  the  oral  evidence  :  (3.)  Still 
more  forcibly  by  the  extended  readings  to 
which  we  have  listened  from  his  discourses  : 
(4.)  By  a  due  regard  for  his  mental  charac- 
teristics, and  the  peculiar  purposes  for  which 
most  of  his  published  discourses  were  spoken : 
(5.)  By  the  concession  of  a  reasonable  and 
honest  liberty  in  the  interpretation  of  our 
standards. 

The  positions  charged'  upon  Prof.  Swing, 
it  is  true,  are  beyond  what  any  reasonable 
liberty  would  allow,  but  that  those  positions 
are  taken  by  him  is  not  proved.  Only  such 
views  of  doctrine  are  stated  by  him,  or 
proved  upon  him,  as  are  within  such  liberty. 

He  does  not  ask  for  liberty  to  deny  the 
doctrine  of  Divine  Sovereignty,  and  Divine 
Decrees;  he  explicitly  preaches  those  truths. 
He  says  they  are  as  true  now  as  in  the  days 
of  Calvin,  that  they  come  into  Christianity 
from  the  human  mind.  He  asks  liberty  only 
to  so  interpret  one  part  of  the  Confession, 
that  it  shall  harmonize  with  another  part; 
so  to  interpret  the  chapter  on  Decrees  that  it 
shall  not  mean  fatalism,  but  shall  harmonize 


with  the  chapter  on  Accountability  and  Free 
Will.  As  a  matter  of  course,  such  an  inter- 
pretation would  be  allowed. 

He  does  not  deny  inspiration,  but  affirms 
it  of  all  the  Bible.  His  difference  from  his 
brethren  is  only  in  his  explanation  of  some 
portions  of  Scripture.  He  does  not  deny  the 
doctrine  of  future  and  eternal  punishment, 
the  final  separation  of  the  righteous  and  the 
wicked :  he  affirms  it,  and  in  the  evangelical 
sense.  He  discards  only  the  picture  of  hell 
drawn  by  some  divines,  but  he  affirms  that 
the  pictures  and  statements  made  by  Jesus 
Christ,  upon  this  subject,  are  true,  and  are 
inspired,  and  that  he  receives  them  in  the 
evangelical  sense.  These  words  can  have 
but  one  meaningon  the  lips  of  an  honest  man. 

He  does  not  deny  Justification  by  Faith. 
Setting  forth,  prominently,  one  aspect  of 
Faith,  in  his  sermon  on  that  subject,  viz: 
the  natural  adaptation  of  Faith  for  its  di- 
vinely appointed  work,  is  not  denying  its 
action  and  power  in  other  aspects.  He  de- 
clares that  he  holds  the  doctrine  of  Justifica- 
tion by  Faith  "in  the  evangelical  sense :" 
words  which  can  have  but  one  meaning  on 
the  lips  of  an  intelligent  and  honest  man ;  and 
that  doctrine  is  often  and  efi"ectively  implied 
in  the  discourses  read  before  us. 

I  cannot  therefore  sustain  the  Charges,  nor 
the  specifications  as  bearing  each  upon  its 
Charge. 

Mr.  Ely  has  said,  "we  must  not  judge  the 
Church  law,  whose  creature  this  Court  is." 
No  one  supposes  we  can.  But  we  are  called 
upon — are  compelled — to  decide  whether  any 
alleged  differences  from  the  Confession  are 
(1)  flagrantly  heretical,  or  (2)  such  as  impair 
the  integrity  of  the  system  of  doctrine  con- 
tained in  the  Confession,  or  (3)  such  as, 
though  proved,  do  not  demand  formal  cen- 
sure, or  (4)  such  as  transcend  a  liberty  of  in- 
terpretation notoriously  and  by  all  parties 
allowed. 

This  is  all  the  judgment  under  the  Constitu- 
tion and  law  of  the  Church, .which  this  case 
calls  for,  and  all  which,  as  it  seems  to  me,  need 
be  expressed.  It  is  in  the  light  of  these 
legitimate  inquiries  as  to  the  true  extent  and 
bearing  of  the  Confession,  that  we  are  to  de- 
cide upon  this  case. 


OPINION  OF  KEY.   J.  H.  TROTVBRIDGE. 

Mr.  Moderator:  What  I  say  in  ten  minutes' 
time  must  be  extremely  fragm^entary.     This 


246 


THE  TKIAL  OF  EEV.  DAYID  SWING. 


speaker  v^as  introduced  as  a  witness,  by  the 
prosecutor  in  this  case.  In  a  letter  written 
something  less  than  two  years  ago,  he  aver- 
red that  Prof.  Swing  was  a  "queer  fellow," 
that  he  sometimes  troubled  his  brethren  by 
the  manner  of  his  utterances — I  will  not 
undertake  to  quote  language — and  that  it 
was  not  impossible  that  he  might  compel  the 
Presbytery  to  pay  some  attention  to  his  pub- 
lic deliverances.  I  thank  the  prosecutor  for 
the  introduction  of  that  evidence,  because  it 
shows  that  I  have  not  come  to  this  case  so 
prepossessed  in  favor  of  the  accused  as  that  I 
cannot  form  a  fair  and  reasonable  judgment 
upon  the  evidence  that  has  been  submitted 
here.  I  might,  sir,  plume  myself  a  little 
upon  the  gift  of  prophesy  therein  displayed, 
but  I  waive  all  credit  on  that  point. 

Mr.  Moderator,  I  have  been  reminded  sev- 
eral times,  since  this  trial  commenced,  of  a 
remark  made  by  the  late  Kev.  Dr.  Skinner 
to  his  son  Thomas,  now  of  Cincinnati.  Con- 
versing concerning  that  arch  heretic  Dr. 
Bushnell,  whose  case  was  at  that  time  ex- 
citing considerable  attention,  he  said,  in  his 
peculiar  manner:  "Thomas,  my  son,  I  thank 
God  that  there  are  some  men  of  genius  in 
the  ministry ;  and  Thomas,  my  son,  I  thank 
God  that  there  are  no  more  of  them." 

Mr.  Moderator,  I  thank  God  for  David 
Swing.  I  thank  God  for  his  noble  develop- 
ment of  Christian  doctrine  in  this  city.  I 
wish  there  were  a  David  Swing  in  every  im- 
portant centre  in  this  whole  country,  who 
might  develop  the  truth  as  God  has  given  it 
to  him,  and  not  to  these  my  brethren.  Do  I 
then  wish  that  every  man  were  a  David 
Swing  ?  No  !  I  thank  God  for  Prof.  Patton, 
and  for  men,  who  like  him,  utter  the  truth 
as  God  gave  it  unto  them.  "  Who  is  Paul 
and  who  is  Apollos  but  ministers  by  whom 
ye  believed,  according  as  God  gave  to 
every  man."  He  gives  to  Prof.  Patton  the 
man  whom  his  logic  and  his  definite  state- 
ment of  doctrine  could  best  convince.  He 
gives  to  David  .Swing  such  a  man  as  a  few 
days  ago  met  me — one  of  the  most  eminent 
professional  men  in  this  city,  whose  name  is 
known  to  you  all,  and  who  is  one  of  the  very 
best  men,  in  my  judgment,  to  be  found  here 
— and  he  said  to  me  tliat,  up  to  two  years 
ago,  he  had  found  himself  drifting  away 
from  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  Christian- 
ity ;  that  is,  in  great  doubt  and  anxiety  upon 
these  points  ;  that  he  had  heard  Prof.  Swing 
during    these   two  years,   and   that  he  had 


received  an  immense  benefit  at  his  hands. 

Now,  with  all  respect  to  the  prosecutor, 
and  to  his  ability,  I  take  it  upon  me  to  say 
that  had  that  man  listened,  for  two  years 
time,  to  Prof.  Patton's  preaching,  he  would 
have  been  driven,  week  by  week,  deeper  into 
the  mire  of  doubt.  And,  why  ?  Because 
the  Lord  giveth  to  every  man  as  it  has 
pleased  Him. 

Mr.  Moderator,  T  profess  to  believe,  I  do 
believe,  that  nothing  has  been  proven  here 
to  the  injury  of  the  orthodoxy  of  our  brother 
Swing.  I  am  going  further.  I  hold  that  a 
more  scriptural  theology  is  preached  in  the 
pulpit  of  the  Fourth  Presbyterian  church 
than  is  taught  from  the  chair  of  dogmatic 
theology  in  the  Northwestern  Presbyterian 
Theological  Seminary.  If  I  must  choose  be- 
tween the  two,  give  me  the  theology  of  the 
Fourth  Presbyterian  church  as  held  by  its 
minister. 

Sir,  let  me  say  that  this  seems  to  me  to  be 
a  question  largeh'  as  to  the  manner  of  pre- 
sentation of  truth.  Let  me  illustrate  my 
meaning  :  A  system  of  theology  is  to  me 
like  the  osseous,  or  bony  system,  of  a  man. 
It  is  all-important.  He  cannot  be  a  man 
without  it.  I  have  extreme  contempt  for  all 
this  inefiable  twaddle  that  it  matters  not 
what  a  man  believes,  if  he  only  acts  right. 

Now,  the  difference  between  the  method 
of  preaching  of  this  excellent  brother  who 
prosecutes,  and  him  who  defends,  is  this : 
The  preacher  of  the  Fourth  Presbyterian 
Church  puts  the  osseous  system  inside  and  the 
flesh  without,  and  the  professor  of  theology 
in  the  seminary  puts  the  skeleton  outside. 
In  the  presence  of  the  fair  assemblage  that 
has  graced  this  house  for  days  with  its  at- 
tendance, and  relieved  largely  the  gloom  of 
tliese  proceedings,  as  a  matter  of  taste,  I  am 
willing  to  assume  in  each  of  them  the  pres- 
ence of  a  perfect  osseous  system,  and  accept 
them  as  God  has  given  them  to  us  with  their 
fair  features  and  forms  outside. 

Mr.  Moderator,  I  suppose  I  must  stop.  I 
want  to  say  one  or  two  things  on  this  matter 
of  preaching.  A  very  few  years  ago,  I 
chanced  to  spend  a  beautiful  Sabbath  in  a 
village  upon  the  Hudson.  I  went  to  the 
village  church,  and  listened  to  a  man  who 
was  then  to  me  a  perfect  stranger,  to  whom 
I  subsequently  received  my  first  introduc- 
tion, in  the  person  of  Prof.  Patton.  I  was 
delighted  with  much  of  that  sermon, — I 
admired  the  intellectual  ability  displayed; 


EEY.  J.  H.  WALKEE'S  OPINION. 


247 


and  there  was  a  good  deal  of  saving  truth  in 
it ;  hut  the  prominent  impression  upon  my 
own  mind  was  that,  if  I  believed  the  senti- 
ment therein  set  forth,  I  could  never  set  my 
foot  again  into  a  pulpit,  as  a  minister  of  the 
glorious  gospel  of  the  blessed  God. 

One  word  more.  The  prosecutor  has  re- 
ferred to  the  former  pastor  of  the  South 
Church,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y.,  and  has  very 
properly  characterized  him  as  one  of  the 
ablest  logicians  in  tlie  United  States  of  Amer- 
ica. Sir,  I  do  not  vouch  for  the  truth  of 
what  I  now  say,  but  I  vouch  for  the  fact 
that  I  heard  it  from  a  perfectly  responsible 
party — that  the  Kev.  Dr.  Spear  did  say  that, 
if  he  believed  all  the  doctrines  set  forth  by 
his  successor  in  the  pulpit  of  the  South 
Church  to  be  those  set  forth  in  the  "Word  of 
God,  he  should  be  obliged  to  discard  the 
Scriptures  as  emanating  frona  the  God  whom 
lie  worshipped. 

The  Presbytery  then  took  a  recess  until 
7:30  o'clock  P.  31. 


7:30  O'CLOCK  P.   M. 

The  Presbytery  was  called  to  order. 

Rev.  Dr.  Halsey. — I  rise  to  a  question 
of  privilege,  in  order  to  explain  a 
passage,  quoted  by  Brother  Hurd  this 
afternoon,  on  the  241st  page  of  "  Truths 
for  To-day."  I  stopped  in  the  middle  of  a 
sentence  at  the  words  "wasted  words." 
Brother  Hurd  represented  me  as  stopping  at 
the  wrong  place,  because  it  should  have  been 
"  wasted  words  for  children."  Now  let  me 
read  the  passage — the  whole  sentence — and 
you  will  see  that  that  construction  is  utterly 
impossible.  "  All  definitions  of  it  [faith]  as 
being  a  belief  in  things  not  well  known,  or  a 
belief  in  testimony,  or  in  doctrines  hard  to 
understand,  are  wasted  words,  for  children, 
to  whom  no  doctrine  is  difficult,  and  with 
whom  all  is  perfectly  well  known,  and  with 
whom  distinctions  are  impossible,  have  an 
unbounded  faith  in  God  and  Christ. "  It  is 
perfectly  manifest  tliat  I  was  right  and  the 
brother  is  wrong,  because  the  comma  there 
after  "  words,"  shows  it;  and  then  the  reason 
is  given — "For  children,  to  whom  no  doc- 
trine is  difficult,  and  with  whom  all  is  per- 
fectly well  known,  and  with  whom  distinc- 
tions are  impossible,  have  an  unbounded  faith 
in  God  and  in  Christ."  I  hope  the  brother 
will  do  me  the  justice,  then,  to  disavow  the 
imputation  of  unfairness  and  want  of  frank- 


ness and  candor.  I  should  be  very  sorry  to 
be  represented  as  lacking  in  fairness. 

Rev.  Dr.  Hurd. — I  should  be  very  glad 
indeed  if  my  own  honest  view  of  the  passage 
would  allow,  to  look  at  the  matter  differently 
from  my  statement  as  made.  I  certainly 
disavow  any  idea  of  imputing  want  of  can- 
dor, and  especially  after  this  statement,  al- 
though the  real  drift  of  the  passage  seems 
stronger  to  me  with  the  full  reading  than 
stopping  where  I  did. 

Rev.  Dr.  Halsey. — I  hope  the  brother  will 
read  the  passage.  He  will  see  that  I  should 
have  wrested  it  instead  of  reading  it  if  I  had 
stopped  at  children. 

The  expression  of  opinion  was  continued. 


OPINION    OF  REV.  J.  H.  WALKER. 

Mr.  Moderator  :  I  want  to  state  in  gen- 
eral— for  in  the  course  of  the  short  time  of 
ten  minutes  I  can  say  but  very  little  on  the 
subject — that  my  views  and  the  reason  for 
my  vote  upon  this  question  have  been  al- 
ready fully  given,  first  by  Dr.  Patterson,  and 
second  by  Dr.  Blackburn,  and  third  by  your- 
self. I  could  not  have  given  them  so  well  as 
they  were  given  in  your  own  most  admira- 
ble paper,  so  concise,  and,  as  it  seems  to  me, 
so  directly  to  the  point.  In  general,  Dr. 
Patterson  has  covered  the  whole  ground, 
and  it  seems  to  me  there  is  nothing  left  for 
me  to  enunciate  as  an  opinion  in  traversing 
the  whole  case.  But  yet,  there  are  some 
points,  which,  if  they  had  not  been  brought 
before  us  to-day,  by  those  who  sustain  the 
prosecution,  I  should  not  take  up  the  time  of 
the  Presbytery  in  saying  a  single  word.  The 
question  has  been  discussed  here  at  consider- 
able length,  by  various  Presbyters,  as  to  the 
constitutional  question ;  some  feeling  that 
the  constitutional  question  has  nothing  to  do 
with  this  case  whatever — that  this  is  simply 
a  case  whether  Professor  Swing  is  an  ortho- 
dox Presbyterian  or  whether  he  is  not ;  and 
on  that  alone,  as  I  view  it,  the  constitutional 
question  meets  us  right  in  the  face,  in  deter- 
mining what  an  orthodox  Presbyterian  is. 
With  all  due  respect  to  our  venerable  profes- 
sor, Dr.  Halsey — and  I  may  say  that  no  one 
here  admires  his  learning  more,  or  has 
greater  confidence  in  his  ability  and  integ- 
rity than  myself — though  it  may  seem  a 
little  out  of  place  for  me,  yet  I  cannot  help 
differing  with  him  and  criticising  his  posi- 
tion.    As  evidence  that  there  is  a  difference 


248 


THE  TRIAL  OF  REV.  DAVID  SWING. 


as  to  what,  the  doctrinal  standards  of  the 
church  are — not  written  but  interpreted — I 
would  simplj'  cite  the  fact  that  a  representa- 
tive New  School  man,  oiie  that  we  all 
love  and  revere,  does  take  one  position, 
and  a  representative  Old  School  man, 
one  that  we  all  love  and  revere,  does 
take  another  interpretation  right  on  the 
floor  of  this  Presbytery.  It  seems  to 
me  perfectly  conclusive  that  there  is  a  differ- 
ence of  interpretation,  and  always  has  been 
since  the  separation  in  1837,  of  the  standards 
of  the  church.  Well,  then,  we  are  met  with 
the  question  :  what  is  the  test  of  a  man's 
orthodoxy  if  it  be  not  the  formulated  creed 
of  the  church  ?  I  reply  to  that,  that  the  test 
of  it  is  the  acknowledged  interpretation  that 
has  been  given  by  the  church  at  large, — 
given  by  its  representative  men — given  by 
its  general  teaching  outside  of  the  creed  ;  and 
it  is  upon  this  point,  it  seems  to  me,  that 
this  whole  question  turns,  and  no  where  else. 
And  it  is  upon  this  point  that  I  wish  to  say 
what  I  have  to  say.  And  it  is  upon  this 
point,  and  this  point  alone,  that  this  case 
seems  to  me  to  have  any  importance  ;  for  I 
agree  with  the  brother  who  is  accused  here 
that  it  has  not,  in  any  other  aspect  of  it,  to 
me,  any  solemnity  whatever.  I  agree  with 
brother  Taylor  in  feeling  that  it  is  a  bubble 
which  has  burst  and  left  only  coldness  and 
sorrow.  It  has  not  even  left  that  on  my 
mind,  only  so  far  as  sorrow  comes  from  the 
honest  diflPerences  of  the  brethren.  I  want 
on  that  point  to  say,  that  I  am  more  and 
more  convinced,  that  we  are  in  a  solemn 
position  as  a  court  of  God's  house,  not  be- 
cause this  brother  stands  or  falls  alone,  but 
because  there  is  likely  to  grow  out  of  the  de- 
cision we  make  a  very  great  difference  as  to 
what  the  condition  of  the  church  is  to  be  in 
the  future.  I  do  not  agree  with  those  who 
have  spoken  here  that  it  ought  not  to  make 
any  difference  with  us  in  reference  to  our  de- 
cision in  the  matter.  Aye,  it  does  make  a 
difference  with  me  ;  it  has  made  a  difference 
with  me  ;  and  in  my  humble  way  I  have 
done  all  that  I  could  to  prevent  this  prose- 
cution, and  simply  on  that  ground,  and  that 
alone.  Whether  or  not  you  admit  that 
Prof.  Swing  was  right,  I  have  held  that  a 
greater,  an  infinitely  greater,  injury  would 
come  to  the  church  by  a  prosecution  of  this 
kind,  than  could  possibly  come  to  it,  even 
admitting  that  he  was  all  that  the  prosecutor 
claimed  before  he  brought  the  case,    if  he 


continued  to  preach  as  he  did  to  the  age  of 
Methuselah  ;  and  I  believe  it  in  my  heart  of 
hearts  to-night. 

On  one  or  two  points  I  want  to  advert  for 
a  single  moment.  One  of  them  is  in  refer- 
ence to  the  quotation  read  from  Prof.  Swing's 
sermon  on  "Religious Toleration  or  Charity," 
by  an  honored  brother,  Doctor  Halsey,  this 
morning  in  this  language — (page  23  :) 

"  Rubric,  surplice,  prayer-book,  two  souls 
of  Christ,  Easter  time,  the  transfiguration 
light,  the  election,  the  predestination,  the 
laying  on  of  hands,  all  count  no  more  with 
the  thoughtful  historian  seeking  for  the  mer- 
its of  an  age  than  counted  the  costumes  of 
those  eras  or  the  carriages  they  drove." 

What  is  the  key  of  that  passage?  Dr. 
Halsey  comes  in  here  and  tells  us  that  Prof. 
Swing  denies  the  doctrine  of  election,  and 
the  doctrine  of  predestination,  and  counts 
them  of  no  value.  What  is  the  key  of  it? 
"  They  count  no  more  with  the  thoughtful 
"historian" — doing  what?  "Seeking  the 
"  merits  of  an  age  than  counted  the  cos- 
"  tumes  of  those  eras,  or  the  carriages  they 
"drove."  In  this  sense  he  accordingly  says, 
''We  place  them  below  price,"  and  that  is  all 
the  meaning  there  is  of  the  passage ;  and  I 
should  like  to  ask  if  even  Dr.  Halsey  places 
these  things  above  price  ? 

One  word,  now,  in  reference  to  the  matter 
of  difference  of  interpretation  of  the  stand- 
ards, I  forgot  it  a  moment  ago  when  I  was 
on  that  point.  I  want  to  say  that  we  have 
evidence  from  the  members  of  this  Presby- 
tery, that  the  standards  are  not  to  be  ac- 
cepted in  the  sense  that  the  prosecutor  or 
even  Dr.  Halsey  himself  have  advocated  on 
this  floor,  but  I  bring  the  evidence  right 
home  to  this.  This  Presbytery  has  licensed 
and  ordained  within  the  last  year  and  a  half 
two  students  from  the  Seminary,  one  of 
whom  came  upon  the  floor  of  the  Presbytery 
and  said  he  had  doubts  in  reference  to  elec- 
tion, and  doubts  in  reference  to  predestina- 
tion, and  Dr.  Halsey  and  Dr  Patton,  and 
Dr.  Elliott,  and  Dr.  Blackburn  sat  there  and 
advised  us  to  license  them  and  ordain  them. 

Prof.  Patton. — Excuse  me,  brother.  I 
have  no  recollection  of  that. 

Mr.  Walker. — He  endorsed  the  Heidle- 
berg  Catechism.  Another  brother  came  in, 
and  said  he  had  doubts  about  the  absolute 
total  depravitj'  of  man,  as  stated  in  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith.  He  had  some  doubts  about 
accepting  that  strong  statement  in  that  way. 


REV.  J.  T.  MATTHEWS'  OPINION. 


Dicl  we  cast  them  out?  No.  We  are  tak- 
ing- in  young  men  who  come  in  here  and  tell 
us  they  do  not  exactly  accept  these  formu- 
lated statements  ;  and  yet  here  is  a  man  who 
stands  not  only  the  peer  of  any  of  us,  but  a 
head  and  shoulders  above  any  of  us,  who 
comes  in  and  tells  us  that  he  does  accept  the 
Confession  of  Faith,  as  containing  the  sys- 
tem of  doctrine  taught  in  the  Scriptures, 
and  accepted  it  sincerely  ;  a  man  who  has 
the  ability  to  call  together  two  thousand 
people  to  preach  to  them  ;  a  man  who  has 
had  more  to  do  with  meeting  honest  doubt 
than  any  other  man  in  this  city  to-day  ;  and 
yet  you  propose  to  cast  him  out  because  he 
followeth  not  after  the  prosecutor. 

One  other  point,  and  that  is  the  point  in 
reference  to  this  sermon  on  Faith.  I  am  ut- 
terly astonished,  Mr.  Moderator  and  breth- 
ren of  the  Presbytery,  that  so  good  a  man  as 
Doctor  Halsey,  and  perhaps  so  poor  a  man  as 
myself,  should  differ  so  widely  upon  that  ser- 
mon. Professor  Swing  preached  that  sermon 
in  my  own  Church  ;  and  I  thought,  when  it 
was  concluded,  that  it  was  one  of  the  most 
admirable  sermons  on  one  phase  of  faith  I 
ever  listened  to.  There  were  Unitarians  in 
the  audience — there  were  Universalists  in  the 
audience- -there  were  Nothingarians  in  the 
audience — who  were  convinced  by  that  ser- 
mon. Now,  what  is  the  object  of  that  ser- 
mon? Prof.  Swing  made  a  statement  that 
is  not  in  the  written  sermon  here,  as  I  find  it 
in  the  book.  When  he  began  the  sermon, 
he  said  to  those  people  that  sat  there — it  was 
immediately  after  the  week  of  prayer — he 
said  :  "  Some  of  you,  doubtless,  have  raised 
"  the  question  in  your  minds  why  it  is  that 
"  God  says  we  are  to  be  saved  by  faith  ? 
"  Why  does  He  throw  down  that  arbitrary 
"  arrangement,  and  say  we  are  to  be  saved  by 
"  faith?"  He  proposed  to  show,  in  this  ser- 
mon, that  faith  was  not  an  arbitrary  thing  of 
God,  but  it  was  something  in  the  mind. 


OPINION  OF  REV.  J.  T.    MATTHEWS. 

As  the  ground  upon  which  I  shall  vote, 
when  the  proper  time  comes,  for  the  acquittal 
of  Prof.  Swing  has  already  been  traversed  in 
the  main,  I  shall  have  but  little  to  say  this 
evening.  I  wish,  first  of  all,  to  say  a  word 
or  two  with  regard  to  this  indictment,  as  it 
relates  to  the  charge  of  heresy.  I  cannot  speak 
with  soberness,  now,  of  this  portion  of  the 
indictment.    It  has  dwindled,  and  dwindled. 


249 

and  dwindled,  till  it  is  no  longer  visible  to 
the  naked  eye ;  and  I  think  even  the  pro- 
secutor himself  must  have  come  to  the  con- 
clusion, by  this  time,  that  the  Presbytery  of 
Chicago   is   what   Mark   Twain   would  call 
"splendid  hunting  ground;"  for  he,  in  one 
of  his  droll  books,  speaks  of  a  region  far  out 
beyond  the  mountains,  and  reports  it  to  be  a 
most  remarkable  hunting  ground.     He  says 
it  is  the  best  he  ever  saw.    "Why,"  he  says, 
"a  man  can  hunt  there  for  weeks  and  not 
find  anything."     So  much   for    the  heresy. 
No,  I  have  a  little  more  to  say  about  heresy, 
but  it  is  of  a  difterent  kind.     I  want  to  say 
this  :  that  there  is  a  kind  of  heresy  in  this 
region,  and,  indeed,  all  over  our  country — 
and  if  Prof.  Patton  wants,  by  and  by,  to  join 
in  a  good  chase  where  he  will  find  plenty  of 
game  and  be  sure  to  bag  it,   I  can  put  him 
on  the  track.  There  is  a  great  deal  of  heresy, 
1  say,  and  my  reason,— one  of  my  strongest 
reasons— for  believing  that  Prof.   Swing  is 
one  of  the  most  faithful  and  zealous  Presby- 
terians in   Chicago,  is   the   fact   that   he  is 
giving  all  his  energies  to  the  hunting  down 
of  the  heresy  to  which  I  refer  ;  for  this  heresy 
is  not  a  heresy  of  the  head,  but  it  is  what  a 
noted   preacher   of  the    Establishment    has 
termed  the  "heresy  of  the  heart."     I  have 
had  the  impression,  for  a  long  time,  and  this 
impression  has  been  deepened  since  this  trial 
began,  that  the  Presbyterian  Church  is  alto- 
gether too  proud  of  its  systematic  theology. 
One  of  its  stoutest  defenders  has  said,  on  this 
floor,   that  the   glory   of  the   Presbyterian 
Church  is  its  formulated  theology.     Now,  as 
everybody  knows,   I  am  a  tip-top  Presby- 
terian ;  but  I  want  to  say  that,  with  Paul, 
"I  glory  only  in  the  Cross  of  Christ." 

There  is  this  heresy  of  the  heart ;  and 
there  are  many  men  in  the  Presbyterian 
Church  to-day  who  are  prouder  of  their  the- 
ology than  they  have  reason  to  be  of  their 
virtue.  Now  this  is  the  truth:  that  there  are 
many  who  tithe  out  their  mint  and  anise 
and  cummin  of  systematic  theology,  so  as  not 
to  fall  short  by  a  scruple,  and  yet  forget  the 
weightier  matters  of  the  law,  justice,  and 
mercy,  and  truth.  This  great  fact  has  stood 
out  so  clearly  before  Prof.  Swing,  that  he 
has  undertaken  to  combat  it ;  and  that  is 
one  reason  why  he  has  preached  so  much  to 
convince  men  that  they  are  saved  through 
Christ, — not  so  much  by  their  beliefs  as 
through  their  lives  ;  and  that  the  Christian 
religion  is  not  so  much  a  system  of  dogmas 


250 


THE  TPvIAL  OF  KEY.  DAVID  SWING. 


as  a  holy  service.  "Not  every  one  that  saith 
unto  me,  Lord,  Lord,  shall  enter  into  the 
Kingdom  of  Heaven,  hut  he  that  doeth  the 
will  of  my  Father  which  is  in  Heaven." 
This,  I  believe,  is  the  key  note  of  Professor 
Swing's  preaching  ;  for  I  believe  there  is  no 
man  in  our  Presbytery,  except  his  own  elder, 
who  has  heard  him  more  frequently  than 
mj'self. 

And  now,  another  point.  Prof.  Swing's 
heart  is  so  large  that  his  Christian  sympa- 
thies and  interests  overflow  the  bounds  of 
his  own  church  and  go  out  over  all  the  land. 
Prof.  Swing  is,  as  the  charges  state,  a  min- 
ister of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America,  and  he,  unlike 
too  many  of  the  brethren,  has  not  forgotten 
that  he  is  an  American  Presbyterian ; 
and  he  has  therefore  taken  the  liberty,  and 
seized  upon  the  opportunity,  to  preach  in  a 
way  to  meet  the  demands  of  his  own  coun- 
try. Now,  this  accounts  for  the  fact,  I 
think,  that  he  emphasizes  so  much  the  grand 
old  truth  of  the  free  agency  of  man,  and  of 
his  personal  responsibility  to  his  Maker. 
The  old  Westminster  Catechism  was  formed, 
as  you  know,  under  the  old  monarchies  of 
the  East,  and  the  spirit  of  these  old  mon- 
archies and  aristocracies  entered  into  that 
Confession ;  and  that  is  one  reason  why 
the  doctrine  of  the  divine  decrees,  and  of 
the  divine  sovereignty,  occupies  so  promi- 
nent a  place  in  that  Confession.  If  that 
Confession  of  Faith  had  been  made  after 
this  Kepublic  had  been  established,  we 
should  have  had  more  in  it  of  the  free 
agency  of  man.  Prof.  Swing  sees  this  coun- 
try full  of  human  liberty,  and  full  of  human 
activity ;  and  he  therefore,  like  a  good  and 
brave  Presbyterian,  tries  to  train  up  men  to 
be  not  only  good  Christians  but  to  be  good 
citizens.  And,  sir,  we  should  not  have  had 
the  corruption,  social  and  political,  which 
has  so  saddened  us  all  during  these  latter 
years,  if,  during  the  last  thirty  years,  there 
had  been  more  preaching  upon  the  doctrine 
of  the  free  agency  of  man,  and  on  the  per- 
sonal responsibility  of  the  citizen  of  this 
Eepublic.  Let  me  just  say  this:  I  know 
what  Prof.  Swing's  preaching  is,  because  I 
have  heard  a  great  deal  of  it.  I  know  what 
Prof.  Patton's  preaching  is,  because  I  have 
heard  considerable  of  that ;  and  I  think  that 
Prof.  Swing's  preaching  is  the  best  preach- 
ing, as  Presbyterian,  because  it  has  done 
the  most  good.    Now,  when  I  have  heard 


Prof.  Patton  preach ,  he  has  seemed  to  feed 
me  with  old  dry  hay,  that  had  been  stored 
away  for  ages  in  the  old  Confession.  When 
I  hear  Prof.  Swing  preach  he  gives  me  fresh 
green  grass,  cut  from  the  very  same  roots 
from  which  that  old  hay  was  cut  ages  ago. 

I  must  stop,  although  I  would  like  to  go 
on.  Let  me  just  say  this  :  that  for  the  rea- 
sons I  have  stated,  and  for  many  more  that  I 
cannot  state  for  want  of  time,  I  shall  vote 
for  the  acquittal  of  Prof.  Swing  ;  and  I  shall 
only  regret,  while  casting  my  vote,  that  I 
cannot,  whilst  retaining  one  Prof.  Swing,  or 
helping  to  retain  him,  in  the  Presbyterian 
Church  of  the  United  States  of  America, 
help  to  bring  into  this  Church  a  hundred 
more  just  such  high-minded  and  large-heart- 
ed preachers  of  the  simple  gospel  of  the  Son 
of  God. 


OPINION   OF    REV.    C.    L.    THOMPSON. 

Mr.  Moderator  :  For  the  sake  of  saving 
the  time  of  the  Presbytery,  by  compressing 
what  I  have  to  say  as  much  as  possible,  I 
have  jotted  down  the  points  which  I  wish  to 
make.  I  propose  briefly  to  give  my  views  of 
the  case,  and  in  doing  so  shall  foreshadow 
the  vote  I  expect  to  cast.  Indulge  me  in  the 
preliminary  remark,  brethren,  which  is  not 
new  in  these  opinions,  and  which  I  doubt  not 
we  all  share,  that  we  are  acting,  and  that  I 
am  acting,  in  this  matter  under  a  sense  of 
the  gravest  responsibility,  I  think,  that  I 
ever  felt  upon  any  occasion  of  Presbyterial 
or  Church  action.  I  have  endeavored,  during 
this  trial,  to  realize  in  my  experience  the 
words  which  you,  Mr.  Moderator,  have  some- 
times used  in  opening  the  session  with  pray- 
er, that  the  presence  of  God  might  make  us 
measurably  forgetful  of  every  other  presence. 
Counting,  as  I  do,  both  the  prosecutor  and 
defendant  in  this  case,  my  personal  friends, 
and  realizing  my  vows  to  God,  and  responsi- 
bility,first  and  uppermost  to  His  truth,  it  has 
been  my  purpose  to  know  no  man  after  the 
flesh.  The  great  French  preacher,  called 
upon  to  speak  in  eulogy  of  his  dead  sove- 
reign, turned  from  the  stately  presence  with 
the  memorable  words,  "  God  only  is  great;" 
and  so  have  I  tried  to  have  the  presence  and 
greatness  of  God  overshadow  and  hide  every 
other  thought  and  presence.  Further,  I 
wish  to  say  that  I  have,  in  going  over  this 
case,  in  my  own  thought,  and  now  before  the 
Presbytery,  endeavored  to  consider  it  purely 
on  the  evidence    submitted  here,   and  the 


EEV.  C.  L.  THOMPSON'S  OPINION. 


251 


pleading  of  the  accused.  For  convenience, 
I  shall  refer,  first,  to  the  second  charge,  that 
David  Swing  does  not  sincerely  receive  and 
adopt  the  Confession  of  Faith. 

The  first  specification  is  not  before  us. 
The  oral  testimony  in  the  other  specifica- 
tions, second  and  third,  does  not,  it  seems  to 
me,  sustain  the  charge  ;  first,  because  the  re- 
collection of  the  witness  was  not  clear, 
either  as  to  whether  Mr.  Swing  said  he  had 
abandoned,  or  the  church  had  abandoned, 
one  or  more  of  the  five  points  of  Calvinism  ; 
or  as  to  whether  one  or  more  of  these 
abandoned  things  were  among  the  five 
points  ;  or  whether  the  one  point  on  which 
his  recollection  was  clear,  was  the  received 
doctrine  of  total  depravity,  or  an  exag- 
gerated representation  of  it,  held  by  extrem- 
ists and  qualified  by  Mr.  Swing,  by  the  word 
total  or  absolute.  In  that  confusion  of  recol- 
lection, it  does  not  seem  to  me  clearly 
evident  that  Mr.  Swing  told  Mr.  Shufeldt, 
that  he  had  abandoned  one  of  the  five  points, 
as  taught  by  our  standards.  But  the  main 
reliance  for  the  support  of  these  two  specifi- 
cations is  the  preaching  of  Prof.  Swing.  The 
references  found  in  his  sermons  do  not  seem 
to  me  conclusive,  nor  does  his  plea  before  the 
Presbytery  seem  conclusive.  He  affirmed, 
indeed,  a  distinction  between  formulated 
and  actual  Presbyterianism  ;  but  it  does  not 
appear  from  that  plea,  that  the  liberty 
claimed  in  that  distinction  is  of  such  a 
character  as  to  involve  the  integrity  of  the 
system.  I  conceive  the  distinction  viay  in- 
volve a  dangerous  principle ;  but  I  am 
deciding,  to-night,  not  on  the  principle  that 
may  be  involved,  or  its  results,  but  upon  the 
facts — a  distinction  manifest  to  my  mind. 
Per  contra,  he  declares,  in  the  same  plea, 
that  he  is  a  New  School  Presbyterian  ;  and, 
except  in  a  narrow  range  specified — namely, 
in  regard  to  formulas  which  seem  to  include 
a  dark  fatalism,  or  the  damnation  of  infants — 
he  has  not  at  all  departed  from  Presbyterian 
doctrine.  Now,  as  neither  fatalism  nor  in- 
fant damnation  were  ever  parts  of  Presbyter- 
ianism, I  take  his  statement  to  be  a  declara- 
tion that  he  has  never  at  all  departed  from 
the  standards  of  the  Church,  in  any  such 
way  as  to  impair  the  integrity  of  the  system. 
"Without  time  to  make  special  mention  now 
of  those  specifications  under  the  first  charge, 
which  are  relied  upon  in  support  of 
charge  second,  it  will  be  sufficient  to 
indicate    that    they    do    not    sustain    the 


charge.  Assuming,  as  I  do  always,  the 
honesty  and  integrity  of  the  accused, 
I  could  not  receive  any  doubtful  evidence, 
gathered  from  sermons  or  expressions,  as 
against  his  deliberate  statement  that  he  does 
receive  the  doctrines  he  has  specified  in  the 
evangelical  sense  ;  and  if  the  words,  "evan- 
gelical sense,"  be  considered  equivocal,  we 
may  grant  it,  but  find  the  explanation  of  the 
question, — "evangelical  in  what  sense?''  in 
the  further  statement,  added  under  that,  and 
as  qualifying  it,  that  he  is  a  New  School 
Presbyterian,  and  has  not,  except  in  unessen- 
tial particulars,  departed  from  the  received 
doctrines.  If  he  intentionally  obscures,  or 
fails  to  preach,  the  doctrines  of  grace  men- 
tioned, for  example,  in  the  fifth  specification, 
I  could  not  believe  him  sincere  in  his  expres- 
sion of  adherence  to  these  doctrines ;  but  the 
evidence  that  should  claim  assent,  on  such  a 
supposition,  must  be  unambiguous.  Now, 
the  evidence  is  two-fold — first,  negatively,  he 
has  been  equivocal  in  his  statements,  and  in 
certain  sermons  produced  in  Court,  there  is 
no  positive  avowal  of  these  doctrines.  In 
such  a  case,  as  regards  doubtful  statements, 
or  unguarded  statements,  the  law  of  evidence 
requires  that  the  interpretation  of  the  accused 
shall  be  received,  unless  it  violently  distorts 
the  obvious  meaning  of  the  words.  The  ex- 
planations given  by  the  defendant,  are,  it 
seems  to  me,  admissible  without  such  distor- 
tion ;  and,  without  defending  such  use  of 
language  as  may  make  him  liable  to  serious 
misapprehension.  It  seems  to  me  where  a 
doubt  as  to  the  meaning  or  construction  ex- 
ists, the  defendant  is  entitled  to  the  doubt. 
Again,  as  to  the  absence  of  avowals  of  the 
doctrines  in  question,  in  certain  sermons,  I 
have  two  remarks  to  offer.  First,  the  absence 
of  clear  statement  of  doctrine  on  these  points 
in  the  sermons  in  evidence,  would  not  prove 
that  he  does  not  receive  the  Confession  of 
Faith,  as  containing  the  system  of  doctrine 
taught  in  the  Scriptures. 

At  this  point,  the  prosecution  makes  a  clear 
case,  that  having  negatively  raised  the  pre- 
sumption that  they  do  not  exist,  the  burden 
of  proof  is  shifted,  and  it  is  for  the  defense 
to  prove  that  such  doctrines  can  be  found. 
This  right  requirement  was  met,  as  you  will 
recollect,  by  the  defense,  not  so  fully,  per- 
haps, as  might  have  been  desired,  but  to  such 
an  extent  as  to  make  it  clear  that  the  defen- 
dant does  refer  to  the  doctrines  of  grace,  such 
as  atonement,  redemption,  justification,  the 


252 


THE  TRIAL  OF  KEY.  DAVID  SWING. 


divinity  of  Christ,  and  so  on,  in  such  terms 
as  to  give  support  to  the  claim  made  in  his 
plea,  that  he  has  not,  in  these  respects,  de- 
parted from  the  doctrines  of  the  Church — to 
give  support,  I  say,  on  the  supposition  upon 
which  I  am  always  going,  that  he  uses  the 
■words  honestly. 

Second,  the   positive  teaching,  as  claimed 
in  several  specifications  under  the  first  charge, 
■^'hich,  it  is  said,  taken  in  its  plain  and  ob- 
vious sense,  is  evidence  that  the  defendant 
•does  not  sincerely  receive  and  adopt  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith.     If  I  were  making  a  criti- 
cism, instead  of  giving  an  opinion,  I  might 
say  that  Professor   Swing's  preaching  does 
not  always  have  a  plain  and  obvious  sense. 
Of  this  character  are  some  of  the  words  in 
these   specifications,   and   according   to   this 
rule   of  evidence,    already   referred   to,    we 
must  call  in  the  defendant  to  give  a  commen- 
tary on  the  words.     Unable  again  to  go  into 
details,  it  must   suffice  to  say,  that  many  of 
these  expressions   have  been,   by  the  defen- 
dant, explained  in  such  a  way  as  to  reduce 
their  dimensions  to  the  measure  of  common- 
place or  unquestioned  fact ;  and  while  many 
of  them  must  be  regarded,  I  think,  as  un- 
happy, and  calculated  to  mislead,  they  may 
be  used  by  what  Coleridge  would  call  "  the 
€semplastic  faculty"  by  which  they  were  or- 
iginally constructed,  and  be  so  interpreted  as 
not  plainly  to  contravene  the  Confession  of 
Faith.     Thus  the  formidable  statement  that 
"  Christianity  is  forced  by  our  nature  out  of 
the  spirit's  rich  depths,"  reappears  again  in 
the  harmless  and  unchallenged  idea  that  we 
have  a  religious   nature.     And   "  the   gor- 
geous bloom  of  righteousness  from  the  soil 
of  faith,"  when   the  obscure  and  glittering 
robe  is  doffed,  appears  again  in  the  familiar 
sentiment,  that  faith  works  by  love  and  pu- 
rifies the  heart.     I  shall  presently  have  an- 
other word  to  say  on  passages  of  this  nature, 
and  refer  to  them  now  for  the  special  pur- 
pose of  saying,  that  expressions  of  that  kind, 
doubtful  by  their  construction — for  a  meta- 
phor is  a  very  plastic  kind  of  thing — whether 
explained  by  the  defendant,  or  unexplained, 
still   require  us  to   put  upon  them  the  most 
favorable  construction ;  and  so  judged,  they 
do  not  make  it  clear  to  my  mind  that  the  de- 
fendant docs  not  receive  the  Confession  of 
Faith.     I  cannot  here  enter  upon  the  ques- 
tion of  liberty  in  the  adoption  of  symbols 
which,  indeed,  to  me  does  not  seem  impor- 
tant ;  the  simple  question  is :    does  the  de- 


fendant hold  the  standards  as  held  by  thg 
Old  and  New  School  before  the  Reunion,  and 
by  the  reunited  church  ?  It  may,  indeed,  be 
granted  that  he  has  referred  to  some  of  these 
doctrines,  in  a  way  which,  unless  explained, 
is  liable  to  grave  objection,  but  not  in  such  a 
way  as  to  throw  discredit  upon  his  plea  of 
orthodoxy  in  all  essential  points. 

A  word,  now,  concerning  the  first  charge 
that  David  Swing  has  not  been  zealous  and 
faithful  in  maintaining  the  truths  of  the 
Gospel.  "While  it  is  a  difficult  question  to 
determine  what  degree  or  kind  of  unfaith- 
fulness in  a  Presbyterian  minister  calls  for 
judicial  notice,  there  can  be,  I  think,  no 
question  that  certain  things,  if  proven,  would 
clearly  be  within  that  degree,  and  of  that 
kind.  The  question  before  us  is,  are  the  al- 
legations in  the  specifications  of  that  nature, 
and  have  they  been  sustained  by  the  evi- 
dence? We  should  ever  keep,  I  think, 
clearly  in  mind  the  difference  between 
ground  for  criticism  or  condemnation,  or 
censure,  and  judicial  conviction  for  unfaith- 
fulness. So,  I  think,  some  of  these  allega- 
tions, if  sustained,  do  not  constitute  an  of- 
fense in  the  technical  sense  of  the  term, 
while  they  might  be  a  subject  for  serious  ad- 
monition. In  illustration  of  this  statement, 
may  be  mentioned  the  fact,  in  the  third 
specification,  that  Prof.  Swing  delivered  a 
lecture  in  aid  of  a  Unitarian  Chapel.  I 
would  probably  not  deliver  a  lecture  in  such 
aid,  and  I  would  not  justify  the  language  of 
Prof.  Swing  where  he  defends  his  so  doing, 
but  the  simple  question  for  me  to  determine 
is,  whether  his  having  done  so  requires  the 
judicial  notice  of  this  Court.  Of  a  similar 
nature,  is  the  language,  in  the  same  specifica- 
tion, used  over  the  grave  of  Stuart  Mill. 
Prof.  Swing,  in  that  sermon,  has  not  at- 
tained unto  the  blunt  emphasis  of  some  of 
the  literary  magazines,  in  commenting  upon 
the  death  of  Mill  from  a  moral  and  religious, 
point  of  view.  But  does  the  sermon  mani- 
fest a  culpable  disregard  of  essential  doc- 
trines ?  I  cannot  see  that  it  does.  In  re- 
marking upon  the  specifications  in  such  a 
rapid  mention  as  I  will  give  them,  I  will 
mention  those  which  allege  positive  errors  of 
doctrine  first.  Upon  some  I  have  remarked 
under  the  second  Charge,  iand  I  will  not  re- 
peat the  remark  ;  they  may  all  be  covered 
sufficiently  for  this  opinion  by  the  following 
general  statements. 

The  language    objected    to    is  in    many 


EEV.  C.  L.  THOMPSON'S  OPINION. 


253 


places  obscure  and  liable  to  mislead.  In 
some  cases,  a  careful  study  of  the  connection 
relieves  the  obscurity  entirely.  In  other 
cases,  the  defendant  has  explained  liis  woi'ds 
at  the  expense  of  logic,  if  you  choose,  but 
his  disclaimer  of  all  meaning  which  would 
seem  to  involve  error  must  be  received  when 
it  is  not  plainly  in  the  face  of  necessary  laws 
of  interpretation.  In  other  cases,  of  sentences 
unexplained  by  the  defendant,  the  favorable 
■construction  ought  to  prevail.  In  illustra- 
tion :  The  words  which  seem  to  imply  a 
phase  of  the  doctrine  of  evolution,  quoted  in 
the  seventh  specification,  have  been  explained 
by  the  defendant  to  have  been  intended  hx 
him  only  in  that  sense  in  which  we  all  agree 
that  the  idea  under  the  word  "evolution" 
is  time.  Here  is  a  sense  in  which  the  Mosaic 
economy  is  a  progress  and  a  very  great  and 
logical  one.  Here  is  a  sense  in  which  the 
Hebrew  religion  was  a  philosophy,  and  a 
sense  in  which  Christianity  was  its  immediate 
result  to  sweep  away  the  iron  Jupiter. 
Granted  that  there  are  unguarded  words  and 
only  partial  statements ;  yet,  so  far  as  it  goes, 
.and  with  the  explanations  that  have  been 
given,  it  does  not  seem  to  me  to  contravene 
the  Confession  of  Faith.  The  same  idea  un- 
derlies the  fifteenth  specification  in  regard 
to  Gift  worship,  and,  as  I  may  remark,  it  un- 
derlies a  great  deal  of  the  defendant's  preach- 
ing.    These  words,  on  first  view,  yielded  to 

,  my  mind  a  meaning  out  of  natural  harmony 
with  the  idea  that  God  ordered  sacrifices  as 
a  part  of  the  worship  of  the  Old  Testament, 
typical  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  but  as  I 
read  the  connection,  the  language  of  the 
preacher  is  only  elaborating  his  idea  of  the 
progress  of  religion  from  the  outer  to  the 
inner,  speaking  on  that  human  side,  as  in 
many  other  cases,  so  thoroughly  as  to  seem 
for  the  time  to  put  him  in  antagonism  with 
the  Divine.  In  the  same  sermon,  he  re- 
cognizes the  relation  of  Solomon's  sacrifice 
to  a  coming  Calvary,  and,  though  for  that 
hour  and  especial  purpose,  he  depresses  that 
view  until  it  only  occasionally  appears  ;  and 
yet  I  cannot  think  he  does  not  hold  it. 

A  few  words  about  those  specifications, 
secondly,  that  are  of  a  negative  character — 
the  first  and  second  specifications  averring 
the  equivocal  character  of  much  of  the  de- 
fendant's preaching — the  fact  of  that  preach- 
ing causing  doubts  among  his  brethren,  and 
causing  him  to  le  claimed  by  others  not  in 

sympathy   with    Evangelical  doctrines,  and 


averring,  furthermore,  that  having  his  atten- 
tion called  to  these  Charges,  the  defendant 
has  not  taken  pains  to  make  his  position 
clear — seems  to  me  to  be  sustained  as  matters 
of  fact.  It  is  in  evidence  that  the  defendant 
has  been  misunderstood  and  widely  claimed 
by  persons  not  in  sympathy  with  Evangelical 
religion.  The  facts  being  clear,  the  next 
logical  question  is,  whether  they  are  of  the 
nature  of  evidence  supporting  the  first 
Charge.  A  man  may  be  misunderstood  for 
one  of  two  reasons  ;  first,  his  mind  or  habits 
of  expression,  may  be  of  such  a  character 
that  unintentionally  his  words  may  be  mis- 
construed. To  this  we  are  all  more  or  less 
liable.  Secondly,  he  may  unintentionally 
equivocate,  balancing  his  preaching  on  a 
compromise  line  between  the  Church  and  the 
world.  If  the  latter  were  true,  it  would  cer- 
tainly sustain,  and  more  than  sustain,  the 
charge  of  unfaithfulness,  and  would  carry 
with  it,  of  course,  the  moral  integrity  of  the 
defendant.  The  defence  at  this  point  avers, 
in  addition  to  the  disclaimer  of  the  defend- 
ant, and  ofl"crs  in  proof,  first,  the  sworn 
statements  of  the  elders  of  the  Fourth  Church 
to  the  fact  that  the  defendant  does  not  so 
balance  as  to  make  his  meaning  doubtful  to 
his  hearers.  Secondly,  the  defense  oflTers  in 
evidence  certain  sentiments  which,  in  a  plain 
sense,  seem  to  be  clear  statements  on  a  fund- 
amental point,  not  probably  what  logicians 
would  call  a  definition  but  a  judgment — that 
is,  not  a  full  statement,  but  the  truth  taken 
for  granted,  and  only  partially  outlined  or 
explained.  The  prosecution  avers  that  these 
statements,  while  admitting  of  a  favorable 
construction,  also  admit  of  a  construction  in 
harmony  with  Unitarian  theology — an  argu- 
ment which  does  not  seem  to  me  entirely 
conclusive,  unless  it  were  shown  that  the 
coincidence  between  Unitarian  terminology 
and  that  of  the  defendant  is  not  the  fault  of 
the  Unitarians  in  using  evangelical  words 
in  an  unevangelical  sense,  but  of  Prof.  Swing 
doing  the  same  thing.  In  view  of  his  state- 
ment that  he  uses  these  words  in  an  evangel- 
ical sense,  we  seem  to  be  required  to  put  that 
sen.se  upon  them  where  they  admit  of  it. 
The  other  explanation  of  the  fact,  that  Prof. 
Swing  is  often  misunderstood,  is  in  the 
structure  of  his  mind  and  habits  of  thousrht, 
which  have  been  repeatedh'  referred  to.  Th  i 
prosecutor,  at  this  point,  claims  that  he  can 
fully  and  clearly  state  his  meaning — a  state- 
ment, I  believe,  not  contravened  by  the  d©-. 


254 


THE  TRIAL  OF  EEY.  DAVID  SWING. 


fense.  In  so  far,  then,  as  he  fails  to  give  a 
clear  statement  on  vital  points,  his  preaching 
may  be  defective.  Is  this  a  fault  or  a  mis- 
fortune ?  Now,  while  it  is  a  question  of 
criticism,  how  far  a  minister  should  be  held 
to  a  clear  statement  of  doctrine,  and  how  far 
doctrines  may  be  supposed,  or  interwoven 
without  being  stated,  I  think  no  minister 
should  allow  his  position  to  be  widely  mis- 
understood upon  cardinal  questions.  Ab- 
solutely unequivocal  statements  may  be  held 
to  be  technically  impossible,  and  beyond  the 
power  of  man,  but  the  question  of  loyalty  to 
vital  doctrines  is  so  plain  and  urgent  an 
issue,  that  a  man  should  not,  by  his  consent, 
be  in  doubtful  case.  It  may  not  be  that  to 
be  in  such  case  is  a  matter  for  judicial  find- 
ing in  a  church  court,  but  it  is  also  clear, 
that  such  a  fact  should  be  intolerable  to  every 
ambassador  for  Christ. 

I  wish  to  say  here  further,  parenthetical- 
ly, that  I  do  not  think  the  questions  which 
we  are  deciding  here  are  questions  of  schools 
of  theology.  In  my  mind  it  has  no  signifi- 
cation of  that  kind  ;  and  without  right  to 
speak  for  anybody,  I  am  sure  the  issue  has 
not  been  made  by  one  School  as  against  an- 
other. It  grieves  me  to  hear  those  words 
where  they  have  already  been  heard  too 
long.  I  claim  ho  special  unfairness  in  this 
case,  but  I  do  accord  to  either  party  the  full 
meed  of  sincerity  and  Christian  honor  and 
Christian  regard.  I  accord  to  Prof.  Swing, 
freely  and  fully,  a  thorough  Christian  man- 
hood, and  a  desire  for  the  glory  of  God. 
As  fully  do'I  accord  the  same  to  Prof.  Pat- 
ton.  I  say,  I  think  it  has  no  significance  of 
schools,  but  more  jealously  than  the  Presby- 
terian Church  guards  the  differentiated  fea- 
tures of  Presbyterianism,  does  she  regard 
the  Cross  of  the  Eedeemer.  Here  she  claims 
to  give  no  uncertain  sound.  From  the  days 
of  Calvin  and  Knox,  her  position  has  never 
been  questioned.  We  draw  daily  nearer 
to  all  who  hold  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus 
Christ — the  truths  of  depravity,  of  atoning 
blood,  and  of  faith  in  a  Divine  Saviour ;  and 
by  all  these  common  bonds  we  are  marking, 
not  obscurely,  but  as  by  a  line  of  fire,  our 
division  from  those  who  would  take  away 
our  Lord,  and  so  the  heart  of  our  Gospel. 
Liberal  in  all  other  relations,  this  is  the  bed- 
rock where  the  Evangelical  churches  lock 
their  hands  and  stand  together.  In  so  great 
a  debate  as  that  which  agitates  the  world  of 
Christian    thought,    every    debater    should 


make  unchallenged  his  position.  To  reach 
that  standing  ground  we  should  overleap  all 
questions  of  personal  dignity  or  pride ;  and 
I  am  constrained  to  say,  Prof.  Swing,  gifted 
as  few  of  our  ministers  are,  and  beloved  for 
his  Christian  spirit,  has  a  magnificent  op- 
portunity to  vindicate  the  historic  glory  of 
the  Church  in  such  manful  utterance  of  her 
doctrines  as  should  forever  make  it  impossi- 
ble that  those  who  are  endeavoring  to  under- 
mine these  doctrines,  and  the  essential  truths 
of  Christianity,  .should  claim  him  as  insub- 
stantial sympathy  with  themselves.  May 
God  make  him  equal  to  that  occasion,  and 
gather  us  all  with  new  devotion  around  the 
doctrines  of  the  Cross. 

Rev.  Mr.  Trowbridge. — I  have  been 
charged  with  discourtesy,  at  the  close  of  my 
remarks  before  the  recess,  in  my  reference  to 
Dr.  Spear.  When  a  man  is  under  pressure 
as  we  are  here,  in  speaking,  he  must  speak, 
with  great  rapidity,  and  leave  out  much  he 
would  like  to  say.  Now,  I  would  like  to  say 
two  things.  In  the  first  place,  I  would 
never  have  made  that  allusion,  had  not  the 
prosecutor  left  on  my  mind,  and  on  the  mind 
of  many  here,  whether  intentionally  or  not, 
the  distinct  impression,  on  Saturday  last, 
that  he  was  upheld,  supported  and  counten- 
anced in  all  this  matter,  by  that  honored 
name  ;  the  second  is,  sir,  that  I  have  the 
most  incontestible  proof  of  the  assertion  I 
made,  and  can  produce  it  at  any  time,  if 
necessary. 


OPINION  OF    KBV.    ABBOTT    E.  KITTREDGB. 

Mr.  Moderator  :  In  forming  my  opinion 
upon  the  charges  and  specifications  which  have 
been  made  by  the  prosecutor  against  the  ac- 
cused, I  have  deemed  it  to  be  a  necessity  to  a 
calm  and  impartial  judgment  studiously  to 
avoid  all  partizanship  during  the  progress  of 
the  trial,  to  refuse  to  be  influenced  by  feelings 
even  of  personal  friendship,  and  to  shut  out 
from  my  mind  all  facts  and  influences  except 
the  positive  testimony  which  the  prosecutor 
has  laid  before  us  and  that  which  the  defense 
has  adduced  to  refute  these  serious  charges — 
with  but  one  desire,  Mr.  Moderator,  to  learn 
the  truth.  And,  burdened  as  I  know,  very 
many,  if  not  all  of  us  are,  with  the  solemn 
responsibility  now  resting  upon  us,  I  have 
formed  my  judgment  carefully,  impartially, 
and  in  prayer  :  and  for  our  decisions  we  are 
answerable  only  to  God. 


KEY.  ABBOTT  E.  KITTKEDGE'S  OPINION. 


255 


Allow  me,  Mr.   Moderator,  to   enter  just 
here,  my  dissent  from  a  brother  who  spoke 
this   morning,  on   his   statements   or   suspi- 
cions, "that  this   prosecution   comes  from  a 
source  behind  Prof.  Patton,"  namely,  "from 
those   who   have  never  been  in  favor  of  Re- 
union," and  that  "it  has  been  designed  for 
some  time  to  put  some  questions  on  points 
held  by  the  former  New  School  body,  in  test 
before  an  ecclesiastical  court."     No  evidence 
of  this  nature  has  been   brought  before  us, 
and  no  facts  can  be  adduced  from  the  history 
of  the  few  years  of  our  Reunion  to  substan- 
tiate such  statements  ;  and,  besides  all  this, 
were  the  brother  better  acquainted  with  the 
prosecutor  in  this  trial,  he  would  know,  as 
an  unequivocal  fact,  that  Prof.  Patton,  right 
or  wrong,  could  not  be  moved  or  swayed  by 
others  to  any  steps  contrary  to  his  own  con- 
victions.    He  has  believed,  conscientiou.sly, 
that  the  accused  is  in  error,  and  accordingly 
has   entered    upon    the    prosecution  of  this 
case.     He  cannot  be  the  tool  or  slave  of  any 
man,  or  set  of  men.     I  shall  not  discuss,  Mr. 
Moderator,  the  questions  regarding  the  histo- 
ry of  the  Presbyterian   Church  as  related  to 
the  standards,  or   what  liberty   is   allowed 
within  her  boundary  lines  in  the  definition 
of  the   doctrines   involved  in   the   trial,   as 
these  topics   have  already   been   profoundly 
discussed   on   both   sides   of  this  house.      I 
shall  also  d-efer  any  opinion  on  the  specifica- 
tions separately,  until  the  hour  of  voting  on 
them  has  come.     I  desire  simply  to  state,  in 
as  condensed  a  form  as  possible,  the  reasons 
why  I  cannot  vote  to  sustain  the  charges  of 
the  prosecutor. 

Prof.  Swing  is  charged  with  denying,  or 
not  distinctly  affirming,  the  grand  funda- 
mental doctrines  of  our  Church,  As  regards 
the  Confession  of  Faith  surely  no  one  will 
claim  that  he  only  is  a  sound  Presbyterian 
preacher  who  subscribes  to  every,  word  in 
that  Confession,  for  as  it  is  a  human  inter- 
pretation of  divine  teaching,  it  must  be  falli- 
ble, and  it  is  at  least  unhappy  in  its  formula 
concerning  infants,  and  in  my  opinion,  is 
too  minute  in  its  declarations  regarding  the 
secret  counsel  of  God.  For  while  election 
and  predestination  are  not  only  doctrines  of 
our  Church,  but  philosophically  must  be  true, 
I  am  willing  for  one,  Mr.  Moderator,  to 
wait  a  little  for  the  clearer  vision  of  Eter- 
nity before  I  fully  understand  some  of  these 
mysteries,  satisfied  with  the  one  sure  prom- 
ise, "Whoso  cometh  unto  me,   I  will  in  no- 


wise cast  out."     Now,  when  I  open  the  vol- 
ume of  Mr.  Swing's   sermons,    I   am   com- 
pelled to  read  them  with  the  presumption 
that  he  intends  to  preach  Evangelical  truth  ; 
for  standing  as  he  does,  Mr.  Moderator,  in  a 
Presbyterian  pulpit  with  his  ordination  vows 
upon    him,    I  assume   that  he  is   a  faithful 
minister,  and  sound  in  the  faith.     The  fact, 
therefore,    that   we   find   in   these   sermons 
many   forms   of  statement   which    are   also 
found  in  the  sermons  of  Unitarian  and  Uni- 
versalist   divines,   does  not  even  suggest  to 
me  that  Prof.  Swing  is  a  Unitarian  or  Uni- 
versalist ;    for  only    by    the   most  positive 
evidence  of  a  disbelief  in  these  Evangelical 
doctrines,  can  my  presumption  of  his  sound- 
ness be  overthrown.     I   wish   that  he  had 
stated  the  truth  in  clearer  and  more  unmis- 
takable language,  yet  by  every  principle  of 
honor  and  justice,  I  am  bound  to  construe 
his  words  in  an  evangelical  sense,   if  it  be 
possible.    Having  passed  the  most  of  my  life 
in  that  city  of  the  Puritans,  Boston,   which 
is  the  home  of  Unitarianism,  I  speak  with 
some  positiveness  of  assurance,  when  I  say 
that  the  sermons  of  Mr.  Swing  do  not  read 
to   me   like   Unitarian    sermons.       I    find, 
brethren,  a  gospel  thread  running  through 
them,  and  if  all  the  words  are  not  "dyed  in 
the  blood  of  Christ,"  as  the  prosecutor,  and 
as  I  could  wish,  yet,  to  me,  the  blood  seems  to 
be  there,  and  seems  to  be  the  fountain-head 
of  all  the  human  righteousness  to  which  Mr. 
Swing  is  constantly  pointing  his  hearers.  In 
the  sermon  on  "Faith,"  as  well  as  in  that 
upon  "Good  works,"  the  preacher  seems,  like 
the  Apostle  James,  to  turn  his  spiritual  artil- 
lery against  one  definite  point,   namely — 
human    sinfulness,  especially,    as     seen    in 
professors  of  the  religion  of  Christ;  but  in 
his  desire  to  stimulate  to  good  works,  he  fails 
to  guard  his  language  against  a  seeming  dis- 
regard of  the  value  of  faith.     But  I  do  not 
see  that  he  rfemes  justification  by  faith,  but, 
on  the  contrary,  he  seems  to  me  to  assume 
this  great  doctrine  as  the  corner-stone  of  all 
religious  life,   and  as  the  birth-place  of  all 
human  righteousness. 

On  the  subject  of  Inspiration,  while  ex- 
pressions such  as  "  inspired  depravity  "  are 
unfortunate,  and  convey  at  first  a  wrono- 
impression,  yet  Mr.  Swing's  explanation, 
especially  in  his  letter  to  Dr.  Junkin  in  The 
Presbyterian,  have  removed  from  my  mind 
doubts  which  had  arisen,  and  I  can  easily 
understand  his  position.     The  109th  psalm. 


256 


THE  TEIAL  OF  KEY.  DAVID  SWING. 


as  I  understood  Mr.  Swing,  is  an  inspired 
psalm.  He  has  not  denied  this,  only  he 
makes  this  distinction — namely,  it  was  in- 
spired for  David  and  Israel  for  their  Mse,  but 
to  us  it  is  simply  an  inspired  record,  only 
historical,  and  practically  by  the  love  of  God 
revealed  in  Christ.  And  so  I  understand 
him  to  say  of  the  wars  of  Israel — that  they 
were  directed  by  God,  and  therefore  were 
right  then,  but  that  such  wars  would  be 
wicked  for  us  to-day,  and  hence  it  is  not  to 
us  an  example,  but,  in  its  practical  relation- 
ship, it  is  only  an  inspired  history  ;  just  as 
the  God  of  Sinai  revealed  himself  to  Israel 
in  the  terrors  of  the  Mount,  and  to  us,  in 
these  latter  times,  in  the  face  of  Jesus  Christ; 
and  hence  Sinai's  God,  thus  revealed  in  ter- 
rors, is  not  my  revealed  God,  for  over  against 
the  trembling  mount  of  the  Law,  I  place  the 
sweet  and  precious  blood-sprinkled  mercj''- 
seat. 

While,  therefore,  Prof.  Swing  has  not 
been,  in  my  opinion,  as  guarded  in  language 
as  he  should  have  been,  so  as  to  avoid  the  ap- 
pearance of  shadowing  with  doubts  any  por- 
tion of  God's  Word,  yet  I  see  no  evidence 
that  he  rejects  any  part  of  the  Bible  as  unin- 
spired. The  fact  of  the  peculiar  character  of 
his  audience  is  to  me  an  explanation  of  lan- 
guage which  was  not  intended,  I  believe,  to 
ridicule  the  Christian  faith,  but  was  an 
honest  effort  to  explain  its  reasonableness, 
and  to  lead  sinners  to  see  their  need  of  a 
Saviour.  In  addition  to  all  this,  Mr.  Moder- 
ator, we  have  Mr.  Swing's  own  declaration 
in  the  paper  which  he  read  before  this  body 
in  the  opening  of  the  trial.  There  were  ex- 
pressions in  that  paper  which  I  could  wish 
had  been  omitted,  but  unless  I  have  positive 
proof  that  he  is  a  dishonest  man,  I  must,  in 
justice,  do  to  my  brother  as  I  would  wish  to 
be  done  by.  '  Loving  and  trusting  him  as  a 
brother  Presbyter,  I  must  believe  his  plain, 
unequivocal  statements,  namely,  that  he  holds 
the  general  creed  of  the  former  New  School 
theologians,  and  that  in  his  labors  against 
skepticism  and  sin,  his  creed  embraces  the 
inspiration  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  the  divin- 
ity of  Christ,  the  office  of  Christ  as  a  media- 
tor, conversion  by  God's  spirit,  man's  natural 
sinfulness,  and  the  final  separation  of  the 
righteous  and  the  wicked,  "  using  these  words 
in  the  evangelical  sense."  Brethren,  I  can 
not  go  back  of  these  words,  and  question  his 
definition  of  "  evangelical,"  unless  I  suspect 
his  truthfulness;    for  I  cannot  conceive  of 


utterances    more     evangelical    than    these. 

And  finally,  my  brethren,  in  forming  my 
opinion,  T  cannot  but  consider,  as  of  great 
weight,  the  testimony  of  the  elders  of  the 
Fourth  Presbyterian  Church.  True,  they 
are  prejudiced;  but  can  we  fail  to  honor 
them  for  their  attachment  to  their  pastor  ? 
Honoring,  as  I  do,  the  ofiice  of  an  elder,  I 
cannot  but  believe  that  these  dear  brethren 
are  more  prejudiced  for  God  than  for  any 
one  man,  and  that  even  their  love  for  their 
pastor  would  not  make  them  less  jealous  for 
the  purity  of  the  Church  of  Christ.  They 
have  sat  under  the  preaching  of  our  brother 
for  many  years  ;  they  have  heard  him  in  the 
more  familiar  utterances  of  the  prayer-meet- 
ing, and  in  the  hallowed  atmosphere  of  the 
sacramental  feast,  when  the  heart  must 
speak  its  truest  and  deepest  convictions  ;  and 
they  bring  to  us  their  united  testimony  to 
his  soundness  of  faith  and  his  simple,  warm 
love  to  Christ.  I  can  not  throw  aside  as  of 
little  weight  this  testimony;  for  if  an  entire 
board  of  elders  can  be  thus  deceived,  where 
is  there  any  protection  in  any  church  against 
the  inroads  of  error  ? 

Believing  then,  dear  brethren,  in  the  per- 
fect sincerity  of  the  prosecutor,  and  honor- 
ing him  for  his  jealousy  for  the  purity  of  the 
Church,  and,  desiring  here,  in  this  Presby- 
tery, to  enter  my  protest,  for  myself  and  for 
the  church  I  represent,  against  any  possible 
tendency  to  a  fundamental  departure  from 
our  Confession  of  Faith,  and  against  all  so- 
called  Broad  Church  or  Liberal  doctrines,  I 
have  thus  prayerfully  formed  my  opinion 
that  the  two  Charges  are  not  sustained,  and 
from  the  evidence  brought  before  us,  I  can- 
not but  believe  that  Prof.  Swing  stands  with 
us  all  around  Calvary's  central  cross  and 
preaches  salvation  through  Faith  in  that  di- 
vine sacrifice. 


OPINION    OF    REV.    GLEN    WOOD. 

Mr.  Moderator  :  I  have  but  few  words 
to  say,  in  attempting  to  traverse  the  case 
which  has  been  traversed  so  many  times  al- 
ready. Agreeing  with  my  brethren  who 
have  given  their  reasons,  and  pretty  much 
for  the  reasons  that  have  been  so  freely  and 
fully  given  already,  that  the  charges  have 
not  been  sustained,  I  only  want  to  lay  before 
this  Court  one  view,  as  explaining  the  reason 
why,  it  seems  to  me,  that  such  a  wide  differ- 
ence exists  between  the  prosecutor  and  pros- 
ecuted in  this  case.     The  difficulty  seems  to 


KEY.  GLEN  WOOD'S  OPINION. 


257 


tne  to  be  one  of  misunderstanding;  and  this 
misunderstanding  arises  from  the  ditferent 
attitudes  of  the  parties,  assuming  the  honor 
and  integrity  of  the  parties  ;  although  the 
accused  is  charged  with  holding  one  set  of 
views,  and  preaching  those  views  in  reality, 
■while  by  the  artful  use  of  words  he  deceives 
his  hearers  with  the  idea  that  he  preaches  in 
accordance  with  their  views,  and  with  the 
orthodox  sentiments  of  the  Church  to  which 
he  belongs.  It  is  clear  to  my  mind  that  the 
difficulty  arises  from  the  fact  that  the  prose- 
cutor looks  sharply  and  almost  exclusively 
upon  the  divine  side  of  the  human  existence 
of  Christ,  and  the  work  of  salvation,  while, 
on  the  other  hand,  the  mind  and  heart,  and 
the  work  of  the  defendant,  are  in  like  man- 
ner almost  exclusively  occupied  with  the 
human  side.  Taught  and  led  by  the  able 
Professor,  we  have  seen  the  glory  of  God,  as 
formulated  and  set  forth  in  the  creed  of  the 
Church,  which  creed  he  deems  to  be  too 
nearly  perfection  to  be  improved  by  man. 
Viewing  things  from  this  standpoint,  we  see 
man  brought  into  existence  by  the  supreme 
will  and  power  of  Almighty  God,  exercised 
arbitrarily  ;  or  simply  because  God  Almighty 
chose  to  create  him,  having  no  reason  for  it; 
and  we  are  required  to  follow  the  course  of 
human  existence,  and  the  dealings  of  God 
with  man,  from  the  same  standpoint, 
through  all  experience.  On  the  other 
hand,  we  see  man  created  after  the 
image  and  likeness  of  God,  and  thus 
made  capable  of  both  knowing  and  in  some 
degree  appreciating  and  enjoying  God,  and 
of  being  enjoyed  by  God.  In  the  exercise  of 
his  own  free  will,  upon  which  God,  accord- 
ing to  the  plan  of 'his  being,  and  the  govern- 
ment to  be  exercised  over  him,  could  not  in- 
fringe— I  am  not  afraid  to  say,  sir,  that  there 
are  some  things  God  cannot  do,  although  the 
formulated  theology,  I  suppose,  would  cen- 
sure me  for  saying  it.  Man,  seduced  bj'  the 
subtleties  of  Satan,  sinned  ;  and,  in  sinning, 
he  fell  from  his  original  righteousness,  what- 
ever that  may  have  been,  and  from  commu- 
nion with  God ;  and  so  he  became  dead  in 
sin.  According  to  the  rigid  construction  of 
the  language  of  the  Confession  of  Faith,  this 
ruin  by  sin  extends  to  the  constitutional,  as 
well  as  to  the  moral  character  of  the  trans- 
gressor. According  to  that  construction,  sir, 
Adam  ought  to  have  ceased  to  be,  as  I  sup- 
pose he  was,  a  very  fine  man,  beautiful  in  all 
his  features,  and  to  have  become  a  very  dis- 


torted, crippled,  rheumatic  fellow;  which  I 
do  not  believe  at  all.  I  think  he  was  just  as 
handsome  and  fair  a  man,  and  his  wife  just 
as  pretty,  after  the  fall,  as  before.  Hence, 
men  of  one  side,  see  nothing  good  whatever, 
in  man  after  he  had  sinned  ;  while,  on  the 
other  side,  such  men  as  Professor  Swing  see 
even  in  the  fallen  man  so  much  of  worth,  as 
to  lead  God,  the  Creator,  to  send  forth  His 
Son  ;  and  God  the  Son  to  come  into  the 
world  and  suffer  ignominious  death  on  the 
Cross  for  men  "  while  they  were  yet  in  their 
sins  " — totally  depraved,  or,  as  Mr.  Shufeldt 
would  have  us  understand,  "  absolutely,  to- 
tally depraved."  In  the  worst  kind  of  de- 
pravity that  you  can  make  out  of  the  fallen 
man,  in  that  deep  damnation  of  sin,  God 
Almighty  saw  enough  in  men  to  think  it 
worth  while  to  take  upon  Himself  the  form 
of  man  in  the  person  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  and  suffer  and  die  that  he  might 
bring  them  up  out  of  the  horrible  depths  of 
total  depravity,  and  make  something  out  of 
them,  fit  for  heaven,  fit  for  the  society 
of  the  angels,  fit  for  the  communion  of 
God,  and  fit  to  enjoy  God  and  to  be 
enjoyed  by  Him.  David  Swing  takes  the 
standpoint  of  Jesus  Christ,  as  I  understand 
him,  and  looking  over  the  masses  of  Chicago 
— but  he  looks  a  great  deal  further  some- 
times— and  seeing  them  dead  in  sin  and  de- 
serted by  the  churches — entering  McVicker's 
theater,  he  proclaims  to  these  totally  de- 
praved sinners,  brought  together  by  thous- 
ands to  hear  him,  Jesus  Christ  and  Him 
crucified,  the  Saviour  and  the  only  Saviour 
of  their  souls. 

The  Confession  of  Faith  says  :  "All  those 
whom  God  hath  predestinated  unto  life,  and 
those  only,  He  is  pleased  to  choose ;  and  this 
effectual  calling  is  of  God's  free  grace 
alone;"  leaving  us  to  feel  that  God  has  giv- 
en it  by  some  supernatural  way,  with  which 
alone  He  is  acquainted  ;  while  Jesus  Christ 
says  to  the  disciples,  "Go  into  the  lanes  and 
streets  of  the  cities,  and  into  the  highways 
and  hedges,  and  compel  them  to  come  in, 
that  my  house  may  be  filled."  Prof.  Swing 
goes,  in  obedience  to  this  command,  before 
the  gathered  thousands  who  hang  upon  his 
lips,  and  proclaims  as  one  called  of  God,  and 
sent  to  preach  the  gospel  to  the  Gentiles ; 
and  strikes  both  saint  and  sinner  when  he 
says  :  "It  is  the  glory  of  the  missionary  cen- 
turies that  they  have  inaugurated  a  religion 
which  does  not  withdraw  into  a  little  circle 


258 


THE  TEIAL  OF  KEY.  DAYID  SWING. 


marked  out  by  wealth,  and  ease,  and  selfish- 
ness, and  there  wait  for  a  wicked  world,  and 
a  neglected  and  unwelcome  world,  to  come 
and  beg  to  be  let  into  the  mercies  of  Christ, 
hidden  by  the  cruelty  of  man  ;  but  a  religion 
which  issues  forth  from  the  disgraceful  re- 
pose of  past  ages,  and  sings  its  hymn  and 
offers  a  loving  invitation  out  in  the  wide 
world,  by  every  shore,  under  every  sky." 
"Keady  now  is  society  for  a  Christ-like 
faith" — that  is,  a  practical  working  faith — 
"that  goes  forth  like  the  perfume  of  roses, 
free  to  child  and  king  alike,  a  fragrance 
which  climbs  over  walla  and  out  of  palace 
windows  ;  and  mounting  into  the  chariot  of 
the  summer  wind,  crosses  the  field  of  the 
poor  laborer,  and  the  highway  of  the  travel- 
er, a  breath  from  heaven,  an  emblem  of 
God's  grace."  I  cannot  but  say,  sir,  in 
my  heart,  God  bless  David  Swing  ! — the 
preacher  of  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ  for 
ruined,  fallen  human  nature,  in  which  there 
is  yet,  nevertheless,  something  good,  and  so 
much  that  is  good,  and  so  much  that  is  so 
good,  that  God  Almighty  was  pleased  to 
give  His  own  Son  from  His  bosom  to  die  for 
them,  that  He  might  save  what  there  is  good 
of  them,  and  make  it  all  verv  good. 


OPINION  OF  KEY.    L.  H.  REID. 

Mr.  Moderator  :  I  regard  this  trial  as 
caused  by,  and  growing  out  of,  the  idiosyn- 
crasies of  men.  Prof.  Swing  is  a  poet ;  Prof. 
Patton  is  a  theologian.  Prof.  Swing  thinks 
deeply  and  brings  out  his  thoughts  under 
beautiful  forms  ;  he  indulges  very  much  in 
metaphor  and  simile  ;  he  must  be  understood 
in  order  to  be  appreciated,  and  it  must  be  a 
loving  heart  that  sits  down  to  the  criticism 
of  his  sermons.  Those  who  hear  him  often, 
seem  to  know  him  best.  Now  I  doubt,  if 
Prof.  Swing  should  make  a  hundred  declara- 
tions, he  would  be  able  to  make  those  de- 
clarations such  that  one  who  sought  to 
find  something  objectionable  there  would  fail 
to  find  it.  That  very  declaration  that  he  has 
made  is  said  to  be  a  repetition,  in  some  of  its 
particulars,  of  the  offenses  with  which  he  is 
charged.  Being  a  poet,  he  must  speak  in 
the  language  of  poetry,  and  he  must  speak 
in  accordance  with  the  constitution  of  his 
own  mind.  A  story  is  told  of  a  minister  who 
was  given  to  exaggeration,  and  the  brethren 
felt  that  he  ought  to  be  labored  with,  and  so 
they   went  and  told  him   what  this   great 


failing  of  his  was.  He  heard  them  patiently, 
and  then  said:  "  Brethren,  I  know  it  is  a 
great  fault  of  mine,  I  have  shed  barrels  of 
tears  over  this  same  infirmity."  When 
Isaac  Watts  was  a  little  boy  it  is  said  he  was 
greatly  given  to  rhyme.  He  was  turning 
everything  into  jingle,  and  his  father  got 
tired  of  it,  and  one  time  he  rebuked  him,  and 
told  him  he  must  put  a  stop  to  this  rhyming. 
The  little  fellow  looked  up  into  his  father's 
face  and,  said  he  : 

"  Pray,  father,  do  some  pity  take, 
And  I  will  no  more  verses  make." 

You  cannot  take  the  poetry  out  of  Prof, 
Swing.  I  believe  he  will  always  preach  in 
the  language  of  metaphor.  He  will  draw  his 
illustrations  from  the  field  of  nature,  and 
from  classic  history,  he  will  preach  out  of  the 
true  culture  that  is  given  him  and  that  the 
constitution  of  his  mind  compels  him  to 
preach  out  of  and  through.  Now,  I  notice 
two  or  three  of  these  points  just  for  illustra- 
tion. The  Divinity  of  Christ.  Just  before 
my  communion  season  in  March,  a  gentle- 
man of  education,  culture  and  refinement 
came  to  me  and  said.  "  I  have  been  attending 
upon  the  preaching  of  Prof.  Swing,  and  I 
feel  that  I  have  experienced  this  great  change 
of  conversion,  and  that  it  is  time  that  I  came 
into  visible  connection  with  some  Christian 
church."  He  had  graduated  at  college,  he 
bad  studied  law,  he  had  become  a  civil  en- 
gineer and  attained  some  property,  a  man  of 
high  standing  in  society.  He  felt  that  it 
was  time  he  connected  himself  with  some 
Christian  church,  and  as  he  was  living  in 
the  neighborhood  of  my  church,  he  said 
"  I  feel  prepared  to  unite  with  your  church, 
if  I  can  come  in  honestly ;  but  this  doctrine 
of  election,''  said  he,  "I  am  not  sure  about 
that ;  I  want  to  understand  more  of  what 
you  hold;"  and  we  sat  down  together,  and 
talked  over  these  matters  for  an  hour,  and 
we  had  interview  after  interview,  and  he  be- 
came perfectly  satisfied,  and  I  became  satis- 
fied with  the  genuineness  of  that  man's  conr 
version,  and  at  the  next  communion  season, 
his  wife  came  into  the  church  on  profession 
of  her  faith,  and  his  children  were  baptized, 
and  he  is  now  a  member  of  that  church 
living  in  that  part  of  the  city.  He  may  be 
here  to-night,  for  all  I  know  ;  I  know  he 
has  been  here  in  attendance  on  some  of  these 
sessions.  Now,  sir,'  how  can  I  vote  that  the 
brother  does  not  preach  or  teach  the  doctrine 
of  the  divinity  of  Christ,  when  this  man 


EEV.  DR.  JACOB  POST'S  OPINION. 


259 


comes  to  me  and  says,  that  he  has  not  only 
been  led  to  the  Saviour  through  Prof.  Swing's 
teaching,  and  that  he  has  been  brought  out 
of  a  dark  skepticism— for  he  said,  that  when 
he  was  in  college,  he  had  read  infidel  books, 
and  had  come  to  settle  down  upon  the  belief 
that  all  he  could  do  in  this  world  was  to  be 
a  good  moral  man,  and  that  was  all  there 
was  of  it ;  but  under  the  teaching  of  Prof. 
Swing,  he  had  left  his  skepticism,  and,  what 
is  more,  he  specified  particularly  the  point 
of  difficulty  with  which  his  mind  has  been 
exercised — that  was  the  divinity  of  Christ. 
That  was  the  great  stumbling-block  with 
him,  and  it  was  under  this  brother's  teaching 
that  he  has  come  to  acknowledge  the  divinity 
of  Christ.  Now,  I  cannot  vote  that  our 
brother,  the  accused,  does  not  teach  that 
doctrine. 

With  regard  to  inspiration,  as  I  under- 
stand Prof.  Swing,  and  there  seems  nothing 
in  the  testimony  to  the  contrary,  he  accepts 
the  doctrine  of  plenary  inspiration — the  in- 
spiration of  the  scriptures  "from  lid  to  lid," 
but  he  says  there  are  certain  portions  of  the 
Scriptures  that  are  not  of  present  practical 
importance  and  value.  They  were  written 
for  a  special  use,  and  they  have  had  their 
day.  Now  I  illustrate  it  this  way — Here  is 
a  father  who  writes  a  letter  to  his  son.  On 
three  pages,  he  covers  that  letter  with  kind 
counsel.  He  pours  out  his  loving  heart,  he 
gives  him  rules  of  life,  he  writes  as  a  father 
out  of  the  fulness  of  his  heart  writes  ;  but  on 
the  fourth  page,  he  says — "By  the  way,  my 
son,  there  is  a  picket  olf  from  the  garden 
gate,  that  I  want  you  to  attend  to  ;  please 
nail  on  that  picket,"  and  signs  his  name. 
Now  in  later  years,  this  son  reads  this  letter; 
these  kind  counsels,  these  expressions  of  love 
are  all  of  present  value ;  but  the  i:)icket  on 
the  fence  was  a  particular  request  that  he 
attended  to  at  the  time — the  day  for  that  has 
gone  by.  But  the  father  wrote  it  just  the 
same — the  same  hand  and  the  same  pen.  The 
son  does  not,  therefore,  blot  it  out ;  he  is 
•willing  it  should  be  there  as  recalling  some- 
thing past ;  he  does  not  deny  that  it  is  from 
his  father,  but  he  simply  says,  that  was 
attended  to  in  its  day.  Now,  I  understand 
Prof.  Swing  to  say  the  same  in  regard  to 
the  Mosaic  laws — the  ceremonial  laws — to 
e&y  with  regard  to  these,  and  with  regard  to 
the  imprecatory  psalms,  that  they  were 
"written  for  especial  use  ;  inspired,  but  they 
have  had  their  application,  and  they  are  not 


of  present  value  to  us  to  be  used  now  ;  and, 
as  has  been  expressed,  it  is  the  eclecticism 
of  use. 

Now,  if  one  of  you  brethren  are  to  hold 
family  worship,  and  have  your  family  around 
you  in  the  morning,  you  do  not  turn  to 
Chronicles,  and  read  a  chapter  there;  but 
you  read  some  sweet  psalm,  and  you  are  not 
reflecting  upon  the  character  of  the  portion 
that  you  reject,  or  that  you  do  not  use  at  this 
time.  You  know  of  men  who  are  looking 
for  the  coming  of  Christ — the  Premillenna- 
rians,  and  some  of  these  hold  that  in  the 
millennium  the  penitential  psalms  will  be- 
come obsolete.  They  say  that  in  a  state  of 
holiness,  when  "  holiness  unto  the  Lord  "  is 
written  upon  the  bells  of  the  horses, 
these  psalms  of  penitence  will  be  inappro- 
priate. They  say,  "why  should  one,  when 
there  is  millennial  holiness  covering  the 
earth — why  should  one  say,  '  Create  in  me  a 
clean  heart,  Oh,  God,  and  renew  a  right 
spirit  within  me  '  —  '  Purge  me  with  hys- 
sop'— and  so  on."  Even  the  penitential 
psalms  will  have  had  their  hour,  but  they 
are  not  denying  that  these  are  written  with 
the  pen  of  inspiration.  So  you  see  it  comes 
to  a  simple  matter  of  interpretation,  and  is 
not  a  question  of  divine  authority. 


OPINION   OF    REV.    DR.    JACOB   POST, 

Permit  me.  Moderator,  to  say  a  few  words 
in  behalf  of  a  large  portion  of  our  foreign 
population.  I  will  pass  over  a  good  many 
things  which  I  should  have  wished  to  say,  if 
the  time  had  been  given  me,  or  if  I  had  not 
given  away  some  of  my  own  time ;  but  in 
behalf  of  the  foreign  element  in  this  city, 
and  especially  those  who  have  become  Amer- 
icanized and  understand  the  English  lan- 
guage, I  dare  say  that  Prof.  Swing  has  not 
been  understood  as  using  vague  and  ambig- 
uous language.  We  have  been  able  to  learn 
by  his  language,  by  his  writings,  and  by  his 
sermons,  and  especially  by  his  sublime  char- 
acter and  example,  that  he  has  been  a  zealous 
and  faithful  minister,  maintaining  the  truths 
of  the  Gospel,  while  from  the  testimony  ren- 
dered before  this  Presbytery  we  have  be- 
come entirely  convinced  that  he  has  been 
faithful  and  diligent  in  the  exercise  of  the 
public  duties  of  his  office.  Now,  Mr.  Mod- 
erator, if  we,  as  foreign-born  and  yet  nat- 
uralized citizens,  can  fully  understand  Mr. 
Swins;,  notwithstanding  he  has  been  accused 


260 


THE  TKIAL  OF  REV.  DAVID  SWING-. 


of  ambiguous  language,  H  seems  strange  to 
me  that  our  American  brethren  have  been 
unable  to  analyze  his  words  and  actions. 

It  seems  to  me,  and  to  many  of  our  Amer- 
icanized  citizens,   that    this   trial  has  had, 
from  the  beginning,  some  other  objects  in 
view  ;    I  will  not  mention  them  now.     Our 
foreign    population,    Mr.    Moderator,    have 
just  commenced  to  love  Brother  Swing.     In 
the  past  they  have  had  a  very  improper  idea 
of  our   church — (the  Presbyterian  church,) 
and  I  am  very  glad  that  there  at  least  are 
two  of  us  in  this  large  city  that  preach  to 
the  foreigners  in  our  beloved  Zion.  My  dear 
brother  Wisner  can  testify  with  me  to  the 
difficulty  with  which  we  have   all  struggled 
from   day   to    day  in  teaching  our  foreign 
population,    that   our   Presbyterian   church 
does   not   teach    the    doctrines    of    despair. 
Brother  Swing  has  been,  perhaps  uninten- 
tionally, or  without  his  knowledge,  a  great 
help  to  us,  as  missionaries  in  this  city.     He 
has   taken   away   many    of   the    prejudices 
against  our  church  from  the  minds  of  our 
emancipated  or  Americanized  citizens.    The 
teaching  of  many  of   our  foreign  churches, 
and  especially  the  papers  which  are  printed 
in    the   German    language,    picture    before 
the  mind    of    our    people    continually    our 
beloved  Zion   as  something   terrific,   fanat- 
ical    and     absurd.        Mr.    Moderator,     we 
need     just    such     a     man,      and     such     a 
preacher   as  Professor  Swing  in   our   days. 
Our  foreign  population  bring  with  them  to 
these  shores  all  their  prejudices,   and  their 
queer  customs,  and  their  strange  doctrines, 
as   well   as  their  nerves  and  their  virtues. 
They  must  be  gained  to  our  church  by  love, 
by  gentleness,  and  by  charity,  and  by  the 
doctrines   of    good    will    towards   all   men. 
Prof.  Swing  possesses,  in  a  high  degree,  the 
quality  of  bringing  men  of  all  tongues  and 
nationalities,  of  all  trades  and  professions,  to 
see  the   beauty  of  holiness,   as  it  is  in  the 
face  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  He,  therefore, 
has  been  to  us,  as  poor  missionaries  of  the 
Cross,  a  great  help  in  bringing  our  foreign 
population,  or  rather  our  foreign-born  cit- 
izens, to  a  better  understanding  of  the  great 
truth,    and   the   doctrines  of   our   Church ; 
many  of  them  are  going,  and  have  gone  a 
long  time  already  to  hear  him,  who  formerly 
never  would  have  entered  a  church  on  the 
Sabbath   day,   much   less  would  they  have 
come   within   the   walls   of  a   Presbyterian 
church.     Some  of  them  have  told  me  :    "If 


this  is  Presbyterianism,  I  am  with  you." 
I  only  have  a  few  more  words  to  say. 
The  children  of  these  men  who  have  been 
brought  into  our  churches,  are  all  filling  our 
Sabbath  schools,  and  we  hope  and  trust  that 
these  children  will  adopt,  in  future  times,  our 
Westminster  Catechism,  and  our  Confession 
of  Faith.  Now,  Mr.  Moderator,  I  ask  you, 
shall  we  cast  out  such  a  man  as  Prof.  Swing 
from  our  midst,  who,  indeed,  is  the  means, 
in  God's  hands,  to  overthrow  atheism,  and 
all  the  foreign  infidelity  brought  to  our 
shores  ?  God  forbid  !  I  would,  Mr.  Mode- 
rator, that  we  all  could  preach  the  gospel  in 
such  a  winning,  loving  way,  and  in  such  sil- 
very words  as  Prof.  Swing  is  able  to  do,  by 
the  grace  of  God,  the  Almighty.  If  it  was 
needful  in  the  sixteenth  or  seventeenth  cen- 
turies that  the  people  should  be  aroused  by 
the  thunders  of  the  law,  because  their  minds 
were  held  in  bondage  by  ignorance  and  idol- 
atry, in  our  days  of  progress  and  civiliza- 
tion, we  need,  besides  the  thunders  of  the 
law,  first,  and  especially  the  spirit  of  chari- 
ty and  the  spirit  of  wisdom,  to  conquer  athe- 
ism and  infidelity  in  all  its  terrible  forms. 
I  know  very  well,  Mr.  Moderator,  that  we, 
as  poor  foreign  ministers,  will  be  branded, 
hereafter,  as  rationalists,  perhaps. 

Rev.  Mr.  Wisner. — I  guess  he  means  me, 
too.  I  am  a  naturalized  citizen  of  this 
country,  and  I  do  not  endorse  that. 

Rev.  Mr.  Post. — Well,  brother  Wisner, 
there  is  no  danger.  I  hope  that  our  faith 
and  our  works  will  prove  in  the  future  what 
we  are.  I,  for  one,  am  convinced,  Mr.  Mod- 
erator, that  if  Luther  and  Calvin  were  alive 
to-day,  and  if  they  were  sitting  at  that  table, 
and  the  Augsburg  Confession,  and  the  West- 
minster Confession,  were  lying  on  the  middle 
of  that  table,  they  would  join  hands  together, 
and  they  would  shake  their  venerable  heads 
over  this  trial.  I  am  sure  they  would  take 
brother  Swing  in  their  arms,  and  would  say, 
"God  bless  you,  brother  Swing  ;  you  are  the 
right  man  in  the  right  place." 


OPINION  OF  THE  RET.  CHRISTIAN  WISNER. 

Mr.  Moderator  :  Just  let  me  say  one  or 
two  brief  words  upon  this  subject,  indicating 
how  I  shall  vote  in  this  matter. 

In  regard  to  ambiguity  of  language  which 
it  is  supposed  Prof.  Swing  has  used.  I  wish 
to  say,  that,  in  order  to  make  a  fair  trial  of 
that  matter,  having  studied  some  languages, 


KEY.  D.  J.  BUEKELL'S  OPINION. 


2G1 


I  went  to  my  study  and  took  a  sermon  of 
my  own,  written  in  my  own  native  language 
nine  years  ago,  to  see  whether,  in  any  way, 
I  might  be  in  danger,  if  somebody  should 
get  hold  of  that  sermon  to  criticize  it,  of 
being  arraigned  before  the  Presbytery.  I 
found,  to  my  great  astonishment,  phraseology 
used  in  that  sermon  that  I  would  not  use 
now;  and  yet  I  know  that  my  hearers,  at 
that  time,  understood  me  as  being  a  rarther 
orthodox  Presbyterian  minister. 

Now,  I  say  about  this  ambiguity  of  lan- 
guage ;  that  if  we  are  going  strictly  upon 
that  charge  or  the  specifications  bearing 
upon  that  point,  I  think  we  shall  all  be 
more  or  less  liable  to  be  brought  into  Court. 
I  do  not  know  how  we  can  escape.  Secondly, 
I  wish  to  say  that  this  feature  of  the  trial  at 
this  time,  strikes  me  very  unpleasantly,  be- 
cause the  nerve  of  it  seems  to  be  a  very  rigid 
construction  of  the  Confession  of  Faith. 
Now,  I  have  tried  to  preach  to  my  German 
audience  upon  the  subject  of  the  too  much 
conservative  position  of  our  old  European 
churches,  for  instance,  the  Lutheran — in 
pressing  down  that  church  to  the  Augsburg 
Confession  in  its  unadulterated  form,  as  they 
say  ;  thus,  as  it  were,  crippling  the  power  of 
that  church,  and  making  that  church  to-day 
lose  time  and  lose  power  with  this  present 
generation,  in  not  going  forward  and  putting 
things  as  the  present  century  requires.  Now, 
the  Presbyterian  Church  has  always  been 
held  by  the  German  papers  in  this  country 
as  a  sort  of  Ultramontane  churcVi,  fanatically 
putting,  as  it  were,  its  Westminster  Con- 
fession above  the  Bible,  and,  therefore,  they 
have  a  great  motive  and  great  force  with  the 
German  people  in  arguing  their  infidelity 
against  our  church  and  against  our  gospel. 
Therefore,  I  could  not  vote  upon  this  ques- 
tion in  favor  of  a  too  rigid  and  literal  con- 
struction of  that  Confession,  but  would  be  in 
favor  of  more  liberty  and  greater  charity, 
exactly  that  which  is  covered  by  the  New 
School  theology  formerly ;  but  I  do  not  pre- 
tend to  be  a  New  School  nor  an  Old  School 
Presbyterian  minister.  I  look  at  this  thing 
from  an  objective  point  of  view,  just  as  the 
German  mind  would  look  at  it  ;  I  do  not 
believe  there  is  anything  New  School  or  Old 
School  in  this  matter  necessarily.  I  have 
the  best  kind  of  feeling  towards  the  prosecu- 
tor, as  well  as  the  accused  ;  and  I  wish,  when 
we  get  over  this  matter,  although  I  shall  vote 
most   distinctly   to  clear   and   acquit   Prof. 


Swing  on  every  charge,  and  I  do  not  know 
but  under  every  specification,  I  wish  to  shake 
hands  with  the  learned  and  able  professor  of 
theology  in  the  Northwestern  Seminary,  as 
well  as  with  the  most  eloquent  and  powerful 
Christian  minister  and  preacher,  the  pastor 
of  the  Fourth  Church  ;  and  I  hope  that  all 
the  brethren  will  do  this  thing,  and  let  us 
have  no  alienation  in  any  shape  or  manner. 
This  church  cannot  afford,  just  now,  in  this 
age,  to  look  upon  minor  points ;  but  let  us 
look  far  away  from  these  minor  points,  to 
the  Cross  of  Christ  Jesus  and  perishing  men 
around  us;  and  when  we  get  through,  after 
these  two  weeks  here  of  neglecting  our  labor, 
let  us  go  out  and  preach  the  gospel,  instead 
of  talking  about  this  matter  for  two  years  to 
come. 

Now,  let  me  say,  that  the  Fourth  Presby- 
terian church,  of  which  the  present  arraigned 
minister  is  pastor,  is  now  doing  a  great  work 
on  the  North  Side.  All  the  foreign  people 
who  have  had  difficulty  about  the  Presbyte- 
rian church,  are  getting  more  and  more  pre- 
pared to  see  that  after  all  we  are  not  such 
morose  creatures  and  fanatics  as  it  is  often 
thought  that  Presbyterians  and  Congrega- 
tionalists  are.  That  Fourth  Church  sends 
up  a  carriage  full,  or  an  omnibus  full  of  peo- 
ple every  Sunday,  to  work  in  that  German 
district  on  the  North  Side,  to  teach  two 
hundred,  or  three  hundred  children  the  gos- 
pel of  Jesus  Christ;  and  they  have  opened  a 
chapel,  and  they  have  sent  clear  out  to  Min- 
nesota twice,  to  get  me  here  to  preach  to  the 
Germans  ;  and  there  I  am  preaching  to  the 
Germans  as  I  can  gather  them  in  ;  and  they 
are  doing  more  than  any  other  church,  per- 
haps, in  this  city,  towards  my  support.  Now 
I  say  this  because  the  facts  are  thus  in  the 
case,  and  I  shall  vote  to  acquit  Professor 
Swing  in  this  matter,  and  I  hope  that  we 
shall  entertain  the  best  feelings  when  we  get 
through,  and  that,  baptized  from  on  high, 
with  the  Holy  Ghost,  we  «liall  preach  the 
gospel,  and  the  Professor  shall  teach  theol- 
ogy in  the  Seminary,  to  his  heart's  content. 


OPINIOIT  OF  KEV.    D.  J.  BURRELL. 

Mr.  Moderator:  I  was  absent  when  my 
name  was  first  called,  partly  b«cause  I  did 
not  feel  called  upon  to  express  an  opinion, 
except  such  an  opinion  as  would  be  expressed 
in  my  vote,  and  partly  because  I  did  not  feel 
called  upon  to  listen  to  abler  opinions  which 


262 


THE  TRIAL  OF  EEV.  DAVID  SWING. 


were  neither  evidence  nor  argument.  I  shall 
vote  that  some  of  the  specifications  have  been 
sustained  on  the  mere  facts  in  the  case,  and 
I  shall  feel  called  upon  to  vote  that,  under 
the  second  Charge,  Prof.  Swing  is  not  spe- 
cially blameworthy ;  and  that  the  first  Charge 
is  only  in  part  sustained.  I  shall  do  this  with- 
out any  reference  whatever  to  the  expressions 
of  opinion  since  the  making  up  of  this  case, 
as  I  understand  it ;  these  opinions  having 
been  neither  read  nor  listened  to  by  myself. 


OPINION  OF  REV.  WILLIAM  BROBSTON. 

Mr.  Moderator  :  I  am  very  sorry  I  was 
not  here  last  night.  I  was  obliged  to  leave 
because  some  of  my  family  were  not  well ; 
and  attention  to  family  affairs  prevented  me 
from  being  here  at  the  time  when  it  was 
proper  for  me  to  say  a  word. 

I  only  want  to  say  a  word  or  two,  to  take 
up  my  five  minutes — and  perhaps  I  shall  ask 
for  a  little  more. 

I  must  say,  in  the  beginning  of  my  re- 
marks, that  I  have  no  prejudice  against 
Prof.  Swing.  If  he  was  in  the  house  now, 
I  could  say,  "I  hail  you.  Prof.  Swing,  as 
an  honest,  and  virtuous,  and  kind,  and  in- 
telligent Christian  gentleman."  But  when 
he  is  charged  with  holding  that  which  is 
contrary  to  this  book  (the  Confession  of 
Paith)  I  must  investigate  the  matter,  and 
judge  according  to  the  Confession  of  Faith  ; 
and  if  the  views  of  the  accused  are  in  har- 
mony with  what  this  book  contains,  then  I 
am  ready  to  say,  before  God  and  man,  that 
they  are  right ;  and  if  they  are  contrary  to 
what  is  found  in  this  book,  then  I  say  they 
are  wrong  ;  and  I  would  not  care  if  the 
whole  world  knew  I  said  they   were  wrong. 

Mr.  Moderator,  I  must  stand  by  the  Con- 
fession. I  do  not  say  that  it  is  the  veritable 
word  of  God ;  but  I  do  say,  before  the 
Searcher  of  Hearts,  that  I  honestly  believe  it 
does  contain  those  doctrines  which  are 
founded  upon  the  Word  of  God  ;  and  who 
can  dispute  this  ?  No  honest  man,  no  true 
man, — can  dispute  that  the  Bible  is  indeed 
the  Word  of  the  living  God,  and  given  to 
us  for  our  present  and  our  future  good,  by 
men  who  were  inspired  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 
to  write  his  will,  and  make  it  known  to  the 
poor  sinners  in  this  house,  and  everywhere. 

Now,  I  am  very  sorry  to  see  that  the  drift 
of  public  opinion  has  been  so  much  against 
the  prosecutor  in  this  case.     I  believe  him  to 


be  an  honest  man  ;  I  believe  him  to  be  a  ca- 
pable man,  and  a  man  who  knows  what  he  is 
about ;  I  believe  that  he  wants  to  speak  the 
truth,  and  that  he  has  been  cautious  in  re- 
gard to  this  proceeding  against  Prjf.  Swing. 
They  have  gone  so  far  as  to  be  personal — so 
far  as  to  talk  about  his  white  neck-tie.  I 
say,  don't  let  us  look  at  the  man,  but  what  is 
the  man.  Let  us  look  and  see  what  his  con- 
duct is,  and  not  look  at  his  white  neck-tie. 
I  don't  believe  in  that  way  of  looking  at  a 
man.  We  should  look  at  the  actions  of  a 
man,  and  at  what  he  says,  and  at  his  motives, 
so  far  as  we  can  ascertain  them  by  his  words 
and  actions. 

Now,  Mr.  Moderator,  let  me  say  a  word  or 
two  in  relation  to  this  Confession  of  Faith 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church.  And,  thank 
God,  I  am  a  member  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  and  am  not  ashamed  to  tell  it  to  the 
whole  world.  I  don't  care  who  knows  it; 
for  I  think  it  is  the  most  noble,  and  does 
more  good  than  any  other  sect  within  the 
bounds  of  Christendom.  Mr.  Moderator,  I 
don't  mean  any  disrespect  to  our  other  breth- 
ren, because  I  think  there  are  a  great  many 
good  men  in  all  denominations ;  but  I  believe 
our  Church  ought  to  be  the  best  because  it 
has  the  best  system  of  doctrine. 

Now,  a  great  deal  has  been  said  about  the 
Confession  of  Faith  and  its  doctrines — horrid 
doctrines  :  we  consign  to  everlasting  destruc- 
tion poor  humanity — even  those  who  are  so 
weak -and  helpless  that  they  don't  know  the 
right  hand  from  the  left.  I  don't  believe  in 
that. 

How  did  this  book  come  ?  The  West- 
minster Assembly — and  I  hope  every  indi- 
vidual will  listen  to  what  I  am  going  to 
read — consisted  of  one  hundred  and  twenty- 
one  divines,  thirty  laymen  from  England, 
and  five  commissioners  from  Scotland.  It 
convened  in  1643  by  order  of  the  British 
Parliament,  in  the  celebrated  Westminster 
Abbey.  ■  It  consisted  of  Episcopalians,  In- 
dependents or  Cougregationalists,  and  Pres- 
byterians— the  three  principal  denomina- 
tions in  Great  Britain  at  that  time.  This 
Assembly  was  engaged  more  than  five  and  a 
half  years  in  discussing  and  preparing  the 
Confession  of  Faith,  the  Larger  and  Shorter 
Catechisms,  the  Directory  of  Worship,  and 
the  Form  of  Church  Government,  which 
now  form  the  Constitution  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church  in  these  United  States.  Are 
we  ashamed  of  the  origin  of  this  book?    For 


ELDER  JAMES  OTIS'  OPINION. 


263 


one,  I  am  not  ashamed  of  it.  I  glory  in  it. 
The  distinguished  Richard  Baxter,  who  was 
personally  acquainted  with  the  most  of  the 
members,  though  not  himself  one  of  them, 
says  :  "  The  divines  there  aggregated  were 
men  of  eminent  learning,  godliness,  ministe- 
rial ability  and  fidelity.  As  far  as  I  am 
able  to  judge,  by  all  history,  there  never  has 
been  a*  council  of  divines  more  worthy  of 
respect  than  this."  In  1648,  the  standards 
adopted  by  this  Assembly  were  adopted  by 
the  General  Assembly  of  the  Church  of 
Scotland.  The  Episcopal  and  Independent 
Churches  of  England  did  not  adopt  them, 
but  tlieir  dissent  did  not  relate  to  Scriptural 
doctrines,  but  only  to  Church  government, 
and  also — in  the  case  of  the  Episcopalians — 
to  the  Directory  of  "Worship.  The  Calvin- 
istic  creed  was  at  that  time  the  common  be- 
lief of  the  Protestant  Church  throughout 
the  world. 

Now,  Mr.  Moderator,  I  have  read  and 
told  you  something  in  regard  to  the  origin 
of  this  book.  I  thank  the  brethren  for  their 
indulgence.  I  did  intend  to  say  something 
more,  but  as  my  time  has  expired,  and  as  I 
am  a  Presbyterian  and  shall  be  regulated  in 
all  things  according  to  that  book  which  is 
founded  on  the  Word  of  God,  I  submit  the 
floor. 


OPINION  OF  ELDER  JAMES  OTIS. 

I  have  but  a  word,  Mr.  Moderator,  to  say. 
I  am  the  first  one  called  upon  to  speak  from 
the  eldership.  It  is  needless  to  say  that  I 
have  watched  the  progress  of  this  trial  with 
great  interest,  and  with  deep  solicitude. 
There  have  been  words  spoken  here — too 
many  words  spoken — some  of  which  ought 
not  to  have  been  spoken  ;  some  have  been 
recalled,  others  have  not  been  recalled.  But 
a  trial  like  this  is  calculated  to  draw  out,  in 
the  heat  of  discussion,  expressions  and  re- 
marks which  should  not  be  made.  This  is 
one  of  the  evils  of  this  trial.  There  are 
many  things  which  enter  into  this  trial 
which  have  been  very  sad  to  me.  I  study 
peace  in  my  religion  and  in  my  politics,  if  I 
have  any;  and  I  watched  with  great  solici- 
tude when  I  saw  this  trouble  arising  in  the 
distance. 

Now,  I  believe  that  these  two  brethren 
who  are  upon  trial  here,  or  rather  the  one 
that  is  accused,  and  the  prosecutor,  are  both 
honest  in  their  convictions.     They  have  my 


regard  and  my  sympathy,  both  of  them.  I 
thank  God  that  we  have  got  such  men  in  our 
midst ;  I  believe  God  will  bless  their  talents, 
and  they  represent  the  feelings  of  our 
Church.  They  both  represent  our  Confession 
of  Faith.  I  believe  it  is  big  enough  for 
both  of  them  to  stand  upon  it,  and  God  will 
bless  their  labors.  I  cannot  help  but  have 
respect  for  the  prosecutor  here,  and  the  zeal- 
ous care  with  which  he  watches  the  truths  of 
the  Church,  its  standards  and  its  doctrines. 
I  respect  them  and  I  love  them.  I  sought 
the  Presbyterian  Church  for  its  catechism 
and  its  creed.  Now,  I  receive  it  in  a  lib- 
eral sense;  I  believe  it  is  calculated  for  our 
country,  for  this  republican  government  and 
Presbyterian  Church.  And  I  am  aware 
that  we  are  closely  watched  in  all  our  move- 
ments. I  am  aware  that  this  trial  is  not 
only  taking  place  here  in  Chicago,  but  that 
anxious  eyes  and  hearts  in  our  distant  and 
surrounding  cities,  are  watching  every  word 
that  is  said  here.  I  hope,  though,  that 
this  trial  will  be  confined  here  to  our  own 
family  and  in  our  own  city;  that  is  my  de- 
sire ;  let  it  not  go  away.  I  think  we  can 
handle  it  and  manage  it,  if  we  are  honest  in 
our  convictions  and  our  desire  to  do  justice 
to  both  sides  here. 

Now,  I  think  it  is  not  fully  understood; 
the  motives  that  enter  into  this  trial  ;  the 
motives  back  of  the  prosecutor  in  bringing 
this  case  before  the  Presbytery.  I  believe 
they  were  honest.  He  is  a  strict  construc- 
tionist. He  has  lately  come  to  this  Presby- 
tery, and  we  have  received  him  into  this 
Presbytery  with  great  respect.  We  respect 
his  talent;  we  honor  it,  and  we  hope  and 
trust  God  will  bless  that  talent.  As  an 
editor  of  the  paper  which  we  look  upon  with 
interest ;  \Vhich  we  have  given  our  money 
to  sustain  ;  I  was  in  hopes  that  he  would  be 
allowed  a  healthy  and  vigorous  criticism  of 
anything  that  he  saw  in  our  Church  or  any 
other.  I  was  satisfied,  and  hoped  that  that 
might  be  tolerated.  I  so  expressed  to  him, 
that  I  believed  it  was  the  function  of  an 
editor  to  criticize  even  his  own  brethren,  if 
their  doctrines,  if  their  style,  and  if  their  ex- 
pression did  not  meet  his  views  ;  but  there 
are  some  things  which  have  not  been  stated 
here,  which  I  know  of.  The  Prosecutor,  as 
I  understand,  was  satisfied  with  that  criti- 
cism, which  I  think  he  had  a  right  to  make; 
some  of  his  zealous  brethren  difi"ered  with 
him,  and  instead  of  criticising  the  sermon 


264 


THE  TRIAL  OF  REV.  DAYID  SWING. 


they  thought  he  must  bring  Charges.  Now, 
to  bring  Charges  against  a  brother  minister 
is  rather  a  serious  thing ;  but  he  was 
rather  compelled  to  bring  Charges.  He 
has  brought  them  here.  Now,  I  personally- 
had  an  interview  with  both  of  these  breth- 
ren. I  wanted  the  thing  settled  ;  I  wanted 
to  keep  these  differences  of  opinion,  as  it 
were,  in  our  own  family,  and  not  expose 
them  to  the  public  ;  but  the  trial  has  gone  on 
step  by  step.  I  think  we  are  all  convinced 
that  the  virtues,  that  the  eloquence,  and  even 
the  theology  of  Prof.  Swing  have  been  pretty 
well  established.  Now,  I  said  on  the  start, 
that  I  respected  and  loved  both  these  men  ; 
I  admire  and  love  Prof.  Swing ;  I  always 
have,  from  the  time  he  came  to  this  city.  I 
hold  him  up  as  an  example  of  a  powerful 
preacher,  and  one  who  is  calculated  to  reach 
the  masses.  I  believe  he  stands  upon  our 
Confession  of  Faith.  I  believe  he  is  a  true 
Presbyterian.  I  have  always  felt  so;  but 
while  I  state  this  fact,  I  want  you  to  know 
there  are  some  that  have  some  doubts  as  to 
the  soundness  of  Prof.  Swing's  theology.  I 
want  you  to  know  that  I  am  not  of  that 
number,  I  know  Prof.  Swing. 

Now,  in  justice  to  the  prosecution  here,  it 
is  right  for  me  to  state  what  I  know ;  that 
there  are  a  good  many  in  our  surrounding 
country,  honest  ministers  and  honest  elders, 
who  have  their  doubts  as  to  the  theology  of 
Professor  Swing.  1  hope  that  this  prosecu- 
tion, opening  up  this  subject,  will  enlighten 
them.  That  is  my  hope  and  trust.  Now,  I 
make  these  remarks  that  no  unjust  stigma  or 
reproach  may  be  brought  against  the  prose- 
cutor in  this  case.  His  talents  have  shown 
here  to  good  advantage. 


OPINION. OF  ELDER  J.  M.  HORTON. 

I  have  very  little  to  say  in  regard  to  the 
question,  but,  I  desire  to  look  at  it,  rather 
from  the  common-sense  stand  point  of  busi- 
ness men,  than  from  the  point  at  which  it 
has  been  viewed  through  this  entire  day. 
We  have  had  a  great  many  theories ;  we 
have  had  a  great  many  very  fine  speeches, 
but  we  have  had  comparatively  very  little 
reference  to  the  evidence.  I  desire  to  refer 
to  it  on  only  one  point. 

My  own  views,  I  will  say,  at  the  com- 
mencement of  this  trial,  derived  from  read- 
ing the  sermons  of  Professor  Swing,  which 
were  put  in  here  as  documentary  evidence, 


were  to  the  effect  that  he  waa*  not  sound  in 
doctrine  according  to  the  Presbyterian  stan- 
dard. And  if  you  ask  me  by  what  standard 
I  judge  him,  I  would  simply  say  that  for  the 
last  eight  years  I  have  sat,  for  a  portion  of 
the  time,  under  the  preaching  of  the  Rev. 
Dr.  Swazey,  another  portion  of  the  time  un- 
der that  of  Mr.  Noyes,  the  counsel  for  the 
defense,  and  a  portion  under  that  of  Mr. 
Kittredge;  judging  from  these  standards,, 
these  sermons  don't  seem  to  me  to  be  sound 
in  doctrine;  though  I  am  no  theologian,  I 
desire  to  give  you  now  a  view,  which  will 
be  taken  by  most  ordinary  men  throughout 
the  country,  by  the  laity,"  and  by  thousands 
and  tens  of  thousands  who  read  these  ser- 
mons; I  believe  that  will  be  the  general  im- 
pression, that  there  are  points  in  which  he 
does  not  conform  to  the  standards  of  the 
Presbyterian  church.  Let  it  be  admitted 
that  he  is  a  good  man  and  is  doing  a  good 
work,  and  a  great  work,  still  he  is  not  sound 
as  a  Presbyterian ;  that  was  the  conviction 
with  which  I  came  to  this  Court.  At  the 
outset,  I  stated  to  some  of  my  friends,  that  if 
Professor  Swing  would  come  into  court,  and 
make  an  open,  and  full,  and  frank  avowal 
of  his  adherence  to  the  standards,  I  would 
consider  it  all  right.  Well,  he  came  and 
made  that  avowal,  and  I  supposed  that  was 
sufficient,  but  the  prosecution  took  up  that 
avowal,  item  by  item ;  and  if  he  did  not 
prove  conclusively,  he  certainly  made  a  very 
strong  case  from  the  writings  of  the  Profes- 
sor himself,  to  show  that  he  did  not  convey 
the  same  idea  by  these  sermons  which  is  or- 
dinarily received  by  Presbyterians  ;  that  he 
meant  something  different  from  the  terms, 
as  they  are  ordinarily  used  by  Presbyterians. 
Well,  there  have  been  arguments  brought 
since  that  time  upon  the  opposite  side,  that 
have  not  to  my  mind  controverted  Professor 
Patton's  proof,  as  it  was  introduced,  and 
this  dpcumentary  evidence.  Now,  what  I 
want  to  point  out,  is  simply  this — looking  at 
it,  as  a  business  man,  from  a  common-sense 
view.  Prof.  Swing  came  upon  this  floor 
again  afterwards,  and  we  have  spent  this 
entire  day  in  endeavoring  to  prove  what  the 
professor  did  mean.  Now,  I  hold,  he  is  the 
best  commentator  on  his  own  views ;  he  >3 
the  best  man  to  explain  his  own  writings. 
Now,  when  he  came  on  the  floor  the  second 
time,  why  didn't  he  say  one  word  jhat  would 
settle  this  question  definitely  and  for  all 
time?  Why  did  he  let  the  views  of  Prof.  Pat- 


ELDEE  0.  H.  LEE'S  OPINION. 


265 


ton  go  forth  to  the  world  and  never  strive 
to  controvert  them,  when,  to  my  mind,  he 
could  have  settled  the  question  for  all  others? 
— and  I  should  have  been  glad  he  should  have 
done  so.  But  he  didn't  do  it.  Now,  all  I 
have  got  to  say  about  it  is,  that  the  fact  that 
ho  didn't  do  it,  strengthened  my  conviction 
that  he  does  not  sincerely  adojit  the  stand- 
ards of  our  church.  I  don't  consider  him  a 
bad  man  for  all  that. 

My  views  have  been  better  expressed  by 
Prof.  Hulsey  this  morning,  than  I  could  do 
it,  and  I  will  not  try  to  improve  upon  it. 
There  is  one  thing  more  I  would  desire  to 
say  ;  it  may  have  been  observed  by  some  of 
you  that  my  pastor  (Mr.  Kittredge)  and 
myself  are  keeping  opposite  views  in 
regard  to  this  question.  That  proves  the 
liberality  of  our  church.  His  views 
are  correct  undoubtedly  to  him,  and 
mine  are  to  me  ;  but  allow  me  to  say  that, 
with  the  exception  of  this  diiference,  there  is 
no  diflPerence  of  views  between  my  pastor 
and  myself;  and  I  wish  to  reiterate  the  state- 
ment that  he  made,  that  our  pastor  and  our 
people  are  a  perfect  unit  against  anything 
that  looks  towards  broad  churchism.  We 
plant  ourselves  squarely  across  the  track  of 
liberalism,  and  say :  "Thus  far  shalt  thou  go 
and  no  farther  ;"  while,  at  the  same  time, 
we  open  the  door  wide  to  the  whole  world, 
and  say:  "Come  into  the  Third  Presbyter- 
ian Church,  if  you  will  come  in  according 
to  the  standards." 


OPINION  OF  ELDER    O.  H.  LEE. 

Mr.  Moderator  :  I  had  a  good  long  speech 
prepared  on  this  subject,  but,  I  am  very 
happy  to  say  that  the  ten-minutes  rule  has  ren- 
dered it  entirely  unnecessary  ;  I  have  just 
laid  it  aside  in  a  drawer  where  I  keep  my 
last  year's  almanacs.  I  don't  want  that 
speech  on  this  occasion,  because  I  shall  keep 
it  over  until  the  next  case  comes  along  ;  for 
I  am  told  that  this  is  but  the  prelude  of  the 
grand  drama  that  is  to  follow.  Whether 
that  may  be  so  or  not,  I  do  not  know. 

I  do  not  desire  to  go  over  this  field,  and  I 
cannot  do  it  in  ten  minutes.  The  whole 
has  been  ploughed  and  cross-ploughed,  and 
furrowed  and  cross-furrowed  until  every  por- 
tion of  it,  I  believe,  has  been  fully  turned 
over,  except  one  little  corner  where  I  stand, 
— that  is  the  eleventh  specification.  No  one 
has  paid  the  least  attention  to  it,  except  the 


prosecutor  ;  he  did  nc^t  forget  it.  That,  sir, 
contains  an  allegation  or  insinuation 
against  the  pastor  of  the  church  to  which  I 
belong,  which  deeply  atfects  me,  as  one  of 
the  officers  of  that  church,  and  which  affects 
every  member  of  that  church. 

Now,  what  is  that  allegation  ?  It  seems 
that  Prof.  Patton,  in  his  extensive  reading, 
found  among  the  expressions  which  Prof. 
Swing  uses  in  some  sermons,  these  unfor- 
tunate words:  Prof.  Swing  causally  made 
this  remark — he  was  not  preaching  upon  bap- 
tism— that  was  not  the  topic  of  the  sermon 
at  all,  but  he  called  baptism  a  "  beautiful 
form  "  of  our  Church.  These  two  words 
were  sufiicient,  sir,  on  which  to  erect  a  great 
towering  specification.  Specification  eleven 
rests  entirely  upon  that  little  apex  ;  that 
immense  pyramid  is  upside  down  and  resting 
on  those  two  unfortunate  words. 

Now,  I  have  always  thought  that  baptism 
ivas  a  beautiful  form  of  our  Church.  But 
that  is  not  the  worst  of  it.  The  prosecutor, 
in  his  speech,  went  on  for  a  long  time,  and 
drew  from  that  expression  the  inference  that 
baptism  was  not  only  derided  by  Prof.  Swing, 
sneered  at  and  neglected,  but,  that  he  did 
not  believe  in  it.  Now,  sir,  that  is  a  mere 
question  of  fact.  Where  on  earth  the  prose- 
cutor could  have  got  that  information  is  a 
perfect  mystery  to  me.  Certainly  he  could 
not  have  got  it  from  Laird  (Jollier  ;  my  own 
opinion  is  that  it  came  from  Penelope  and 
Socrates. 

What  are  the  facts  in  the  case  ?  If  he  had 
come  to  me,  or  any  one  of  those  two  hundred 
members  of  that  congregation,  he  would 
have  found  the  fact  to  be  that  Prof.  Swing 
reveres,  loves  and  cherishes  that  sacrament 
of  our  Church,  as  much  as  even  the  theology 
itself;  and  there  has  never  been  any  occasion 
where  it  has  been  omitted  or  not  observed. 
I  can  place  my  hands  on  three  Christian 
brethren  in  this  audience,  and  perhaps  more, 
to  whom  Prof.  Swing  has  come  and  pointed 
out  to  them  the  duty  of  presenting  their 
young  children  to  God  in  the  beautiful  form 
of  Christian  baptism.  I  know  these  facts  ; 
I  can  carry  my  mind  back,  sir,  and  I  can  re- 
member when  over  ten  young  infants  at  one 
time  had  the  seal  of  the  covenant  placed 
upon  their  young  brows,  and  were  given  to 
God  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  and  the 
Holy  Spirit.  And,  sir,  all  along  through  his 
ministry  he  has  been  faithful  in .  that  one 
observance,  as  you  can  easily  ascertain  by 


THE  TEIAL  OF  KEV.  DAVID  SWING. 


referring   to   any   of  the  members   of  that 
church. 

Now,  sir,  look  at  the  circumstances  of  our 
church.  Eor  two  years  and  more  we  were 
houseless  and  homeless,  not  only  in  regard 
to  a  church,  but  in  our  domestic  relations. 
The  fire  on  the  North  Side  scattered  our.  entire 
congregation,  and  there  was  not  a  single 
member  of  the  church,  so  far  as  I  recollect, 
on  the  North  Side,  who  had  a  house  to  shelter 
him.  Now,  just  as  soon,  and  even  before, 
the  ashes  grew  cold,  Elder  King  came  and 
re-erected  his  shattered  house,  and  he  threw 
open  his  parlor  to  make  a  Bethel  for  the 
worship  of  the  living  God,  and  here  our 
stricken  and  scattered  members  were  gather- 
ed every  week,  ofl'ering  to  God  the  incense 
of  their  praise,  and  other  members  were  re- 
ceived into  our  church.  There  young  chil- 
dren werebaptized,  and  there  the  Communion 
was  observed,  and  all  the  ordinances  of  God's 
House  were  kept  up  in  perfect  regularity. 
The  outside  world  didn't  know  this  ;  all  they 
knew  of  the  Fourth  church  was  that  Prof. 
Swing,  every  sabbath  day,  was  preaching  in 
McVicker's  Theatre ;  and  those  outside 
critics  who  gave  us  this  information  about 
Prof.  Swing's  views  about  baptism  had  no 
knowledge  of  our  internal  life. 

We  have  only  had  a  church  for  six 
months — since  the  first  of  January.  We 
are  just  beginning  to  gather  around  it  to  es- 
tablish the  ordinances  of  God's  House  in 
their  appropriate  place.  Now,  I  do  say  that 
any  Christian  man  that  could  put  his  pen  to 
paper  and  make  such  an  allegation  as  that, 
ought  to  be  ashamed  of  himself;  and  if  hu- 
man blood  ever  tinges  the  cheek  with  shame, 
it  ought  to  mantle  his  cheek.  I  speak  with 
a  good  deal  of  feeling,  because  I  feel  that  an 
outrage  has  been  committed,  not  only  upon 
the  pastor  of  this  church,  but  upon  the 
whole  membership  of  the  church.  To  say 
that  Prof.  Swing  neglects  one  of  the  most 
important  ordinances  of  religion,  is  a  calum- 
ny that  ought  to  be  apologized  for,  for  it  is 
utterly  false ;  that  is  the  reason  I  repel  this 
insinuation. 

Now,  sir,  I  have  not  got  much  more  to 
gay ;  1  will  only  say  that  our  church  loves 
our  pastor ;  for  we  know  him,  and  we  rally 
around  him  with  perfect  unanimity,  and,  sir, 
we  intend  to  occupy  that  position.  He  is  a 
kind-hearted,  loving  man,  as  well  as  a  faith- 
ful pastor.     He  visits  our  families  ;  he  comes 


and  he  baptizes  our  children.  He  marries 
the  hearts  that  love  each  other.  He  visits 
our  sick ;  his  gentle  hands  wipe  the  death- 
damp  from  the  dying,  and  the  words  of  ten- 
derness, consolation  and  comfort  fall  from 
his  lips  upon  bereaved  and  stricken  hearts 
We  know  all  this.  It  is  part  of  our  experi- 
ence of  his  ministry ;  but  I  am  only  speak- 
ing for  myself,  when  I  say  that,  although 
you  may  have  the  power,  as  a  judicatory, 
to  tell  this  gentle  heart  that  you  don't  want 
his  communion,  that  he  had  better  leave  you, 
that  his  Presbyterianism  is  not  quite  good 
enough  for  you ;  you  can  say  all  this ;  he 
will  not  insist  on  remaining-  inside  of  your 
bond ;  but  he  never  will  stop  preaching  the 
gospel  of  Jesus  Christ.  He  never  will  stop 
while  God  gives  him  breath  enough  to  speak, 
or  to  warn  the  erring,  to  enlighten  the  skep- 
tic, and  to  win  the  sinful  to  Jesus  Christ, 
wherever  he  may  be.  His  splendid  talent, 
his  warm  heart,  and  his  glorious  abilities, 
will  be  devoted  to  the  services  of  his  Divine 
Master  wherever  he  is.  His  work  will  be 
done  successfully,  and  numerous  trophies  of 
redeeming  love  will  be  won  by  his  enticing 
words  and  by  his  faithful  ministrations. 
This  is  the  man,  sir,  that  you  can  repel.  It 
will  need  but  the  push  of  an  infant  to  send 
him  across  that  narrow  boundary  that  sepa- 
rates this  Presbyterian  Church  from  the 
broader  and  grander  and  more  glorious  plat- 
form, namely,  the  Christianity  that  Jesus 
Christ  himself  founded. 

I  can  only  speak  for  myself  on  this  mat- 
ter ;  but  if  he  goes,  I  shall  say  to  him  as 
Kuth  did  ;  I  shall  take  his  hand  and  say: 
"Where  thou  goest,  I  will  go;  thy  people 
shall  be  my  people,  and  thy  God  shall  be  my 
God." 


OPINION  or   ELDER  J.   EDWARDS   FAY. 

Mr.  Moderator:  I  desire  to  say  in  the  out- 
set, that  I  have  no  sympathy  whatever  with 
these  allegations  which  ascribe  unworthy  mo- 
tives to  the  prosecution  of  this  case ;  that,  so  far 
as  my  judgment  goes,  from  the  observation  I 
have  been  able  to  give  to  this  trial — and  I  be- 
lieve I  have  been  present  durng  the  whole  of 
the  evidence  and  of  the  arguments—  it  appears 
to  my  mind,  that  there  has  been  the  highest  in- 
tegrity of  purpose,  and  that  this  prosecution 
has  been  conducted  with  courtesy  and  with  a 
propriety  that  has  brought  forth  from  the 


ELDEE  FKANCIS  A.  KIDDLE'S  OPINION. 


2G7 


press  encomiums  wliich  are  entirely  different 
from  what  we  heard  when  this  prosecution 
commenced  in  regard  to  it.  Only  once,  I 
believe,  has  anything  been  done  which  trans- 
cended in  any  degree  the  bounds  of  decorum ; 
and  then,  we  all  have  in  our  minds  the 
courtesy  and  beauty  with  which  that  was  re- 
tracted. 

Now,  sir,  it  is  perfectly  natural  for  me,  as 
would  be  well  known  to  those  who  know  me 
best,  to  be  of  the  opinion,  that  this  case  must 
be  judged  by  the  law  and  the  evidence ;  but, 
sir,  at  this  late  hour,  I  only  propose  to  speak 
of  a  few  of  the  principles  of  law,  and  to  speak 
of  a  few  of  their  applications  to  the  evidence 
as  taken  in  connection  with  these  principles, 
which  occur  to  my  mind  at  this  time. 

In  the  first  place,  with  regard  to  the  pre- 
sumption to  be  allowed  in  regard  to  the 
accused.  The  accused,  as  I  understand  this 
matter,  stands  in  a  position  analogous  to  a 
person  who  has  violated  a  law,  to  which 
there  is  attached  a  penalty,  and  that  the  pre- 
sumption to  be  taken  in  his  favor  is  a  pre- 
sumption of  inni  cence,  such  that  the  proof 
must  be  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt  in  order 
to  sustain  the  charge. 

Now,  I  apprehend  that  this  Court  is  further 
governed  by  those  principles  and  rules  which 
pertain  somewhat  to  our  chancery  practice 
in  civil  courts.  In  that  there  is  a  wide  lati- 
tude of  evidence  given,  even  wider  than  that 
which  obtains  in  the  hearing  in  chancery 
eases.  Now,  taking  these  two  principles  to 
control  our  action  in  this  case;  it,  of  course, 
would  have  been  much  more  satisfactory  to 
very  many  of  us,  if  we  could  have  had  a 
categorical  answer  to  the  points,  and  to  the 
questions  which  have  been  raised,  from  the 
accused  in  this  case.  But,  it  seems  to  me 
that  taking  this  in  connection  with  the  rules 
laid  down  in  the  Digest  of  the  Craighead 
case  and  the  Barnes  case,  to  which  reference 
has  been  made,  and  both  of  which  I  have 
studied  with  some  attention,  it  seems  to  me, 
that  taking  these  rules  of  the  civil  law,  and 
those  rules  which  obtain  in  all  courts,  and 
the  precedents  given  us  by  those  two  cases  in 
our  Digest,  that  when  we  come  to  this  decla- 
ration which  occurs  in  the  answer  in  which 
the  accused  declares  that  he  holds  the  general 
creed,  as  rendered  by  New  School  theolog- 
ians, that  we  are  to  take  that  with  the  ut- 
most presumption  in  his  favor,  that  we  are 
to  take  that  as  including  all  that  it  is  neces- 
sary to  include  by  way  of  admission  on  his 


part,  in  order  to  meet  these  ;  and  I  regard 
the  doctrines  which  he  has  laid  down  after- 
wards, not  as  modifying  this  expression,  but 
as  addenda  thereto. 

Sir,  it  seems  to  me  that  taking  the  admis- 
sion he  has  made,  and  the  explanation  he  has 
made  in  regard  to  many  points  in  the  speci- 
fications— I  will  not  take  time  at  this  late 
hour,  and  go  over  them  and  illustrate,  but, 
it  seems  to  me,  taking  these  things  and  this 
answer  in  connection  v/ith  this  explanation, 
that  we  can  decide  this  case  but  one  way  ,• 
and  it  does  appear  to  me  that  there  is  a  more 
important  principle  involved  here  than  just 
the  satisfaction  of  some  single  idea.  Why, 
I  remember  that  in  an  adjoining  State,  in  a 
civil  case,  a  question  was  raised  in  re- 
gard to  a  matter  which  widely  affected  pub- 
lic policy — a  policy  which  had  been  changed 
in  the  course  of  a  generation  by  circum- 
stances, so  that  in  the  opinion  of  the  court  it 
was  necessary  for  the  public  good  that  the 
former  adjudication  should  be  directly  over- 
ruled ;  and  that  was  done  on  that  principle. 

It  seems  to  me  that,  governing  this  case 
by  principles  of  equity,  and  by  principles  of 
the  largest  justice  towards  the  Church  and 
towards  humanity,  we  are  to  apply  these 
principles,  which  I  have  laid  down  ;  to  take 
the  evidence  as  we  have  had  it  before  us,  in 
connection  therewith ;  and  taking  them  in 
that  way,  that  we  can  but  find  one  decision 
in  this  case ;  that  to  do  otherwise,  would 
characterize  our  decision  with  the  darkness 
and  shadows  of  the  night  of  sacrifice  of  Cal- 
vary ;  that  to  give  them  the  other  view  is 
but  a  sort  of  looking  forward,  as  it  were,  to 
the  glories  of  the  resurrection  morning, 
which  consists  in  Eaith,  Hope  and  Charity, 


OPINION  OF  ELDKR  FRANCIS  A,  RIDDLE. 

Mr  Moderator  :  The  respondent  at  the 
bar  of  this  court  is  charged, 

1.  "With  not  being  faithful  as  a  minister  in 
the  discharge  of  his  public  duties,  and  with 
lacking  fidelity  and  zeal  in  maintaining  thq 
truths  of  the  gospel  ;  and 

2.  With  not  receiving  and  adopting  the 
Confession  of  Faith  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  as  containing  the  system  of  doctrine 
taught  in  the  Scriptures. 

It  would  scarcely  be  possible  to  make  ac- 
cusations more  general  than  these  laid  against 
Professor  Swing,  by  the  prosecutor  in  this 
case.     When  we  reflect  upon   the  weakne^ 


268 


THE  TRIAL  OF  REV.  DAVID  SWING. 


of  humanity,  and  remember  that  all  men, 
whether  bishops  or  laymen,  are,  to  a  greater 
or  less  degree,  lacking  in  faithfulness,  and 
are  all  more  or  less  wanting  in  zeal  and  dili- 
gence in  the  dischai-ge  of  any  and  all  the  va- 
ried duties  of  human  life,  we  comprehend 
at  once  what  innumerable  delinquencies  may 
be  included  under  the  first  of  these  charges. 

It  is  apparent,  from  the  long  list  of  speci- 
fications, under  Charge  I.  that  the  design  of 
its  author  was  to  make  it  broad  enough  to 
comprehend  every  ministerial  act,  and  word, 
and  uttered  thought  of  the  accused,  and  to 
enable  the  prosecutor  to  criticise  and  meas- 
ure, by  strict  and  invariable  rule,  any  and 
every  slight  deviation  of  the  defendant  from 
an  assumed  standard  of  what  is  or  is  not 
faithfulness,  or  zeal,  or  diligence,  in  the  min- 
istry. 

Under  this  broad  accusation  are  specified 
as  departures  from  the  standard  of  the  pros- 
ecutor, almost  every  false  doctrine  or  opinion 
common  to  men  of  every  shade  and  color,  or 
latitude  of  belief.  The  whole  range  of  hu- 
man frailty,  so  far  as  it  afl'ects  the  mind  and 
heart,  has  been  traversed  by  the  accuser,  and 
wherever  he  has  been  able  to  detect  a  single 
mistake,  whether  in  word,  or  thought,  or 
deed,  and  even  where  he  has  been  able  to 
surmise  wrong  intention  on  the  part  of  his 
accused  brother,  he  has  spread  them  out  be- 
fore us  in  long  and  solemn  array,  in  order 
that  he  might  be  able  to  sustain  a  grave 
charge,  of  which  all  men,  without  respect 
to  their  high  calling,  are  guilty  or  innocent 
in  degree. 

"With  this  evident  fact  before  him,  the 
prosecutor  has  labored  with  all  his  power 
and  might  to  prove  the  defendant  guilty  of 
all  the  specifications  under  both  the  charges. 
No  effort  of  the  accuser  has  been  spared  to 
convict  the  accused  of  the  worst  form  of 
guilt  under  all  these  alleged  offenses. 

Not  only  have  the  public  acts  and  utter- 
ances of  Professor  Swing  been  laid  before 
this  body  in  detail,  but  the  privacy  of 
friendly  and  confidential  relations  has  been 
invaded  with  a  spirit  akin  to  that  of  the  de- 
votees of  the  Spanish  Inquisition.  No  link 
possible  to  be  procured,  which  the  prosecutor 
thought  necessary  to  complete  the  chain  of 
testimony  in  proof  of  the  defendant's  guilt, 
has  been  omitted.  No  argument  which  the 
ingenuity  of  the  accuser  could  bring  to  bear 
has  been  left  unspoken.  Every  scheme,  or 
device  which  his  cunning,  or  skill,  or  vigi- 


lance could  invent  or  suggest,  has  been  urged 
upon  this  Court  with  all  the  force  and  indus- 
try, and  with  all  the  ability  at  his  com- 
mand, in  order  to  maintain  the  truth  of  the 
accusations  he  has  made.  His  energy  and 
zeal  in  this  respect  have,  at  times,  seemed  to 
spring  from  an  intense  desire  to  secure  the 
conviction  of  the  accused,  rather  than  to  aid 
the  judicatory  in  ascertaining  the  truth  of 
these  charges.  Every  liberty  and  privilege 
consistent  with  the  dignity  of  this  Court  and 
the  rights  of  the  defendant,  have  been  ac- 
corded to  him. 

And  now,  however  unwelcome  the  task, 
we  must  pronounce  our'  judgment  upon  the 
guilt  or  innocence  of  the  respondent. 

In  discharging  this  duty,  let  us  bear  in 
mind  that  we  must  base  our  decision  upon 
the  evidence  submitted  to  us,  and  not  upon 
the  arguments  or  deductions  of  the  prosecu- 
tor ;  nor  upon  those  of  the  defense,  except 
so  far  as  the  statements  of  the  accused  are 
explanatory  of  the  matter  charged  against 
him.  Let  us  remember,  also,  that  he  who 
charges  an  oflTense  upon  his  brother,  must 
bring  proof  to  sustain  the  accusation  beyond 
a  reasonable  doubt.  The  burden  of  this  proof 
also  rests  upon  the  accuser. 

These  are  maxims  in  law,  where  an  offense 
is  charged  against  the  laws  of  the  State  ; 
and  no  one  can  reasonably  question  their 
force  and  justice  in  determining  an  offense 
against  the  Church. 

The  evidence  relied  upon  by  the  prosecu- 
tor to  make  proof  of  his  charges,  consists  in 
part  of  printed  sermons  or  essays,  and  in 
part  of  the  testimony  of  living  witnesses. 
The  greater  part  of  the  testimony,  and  that 
upon  which  the  accuser  has  mos-t  strongly 
relied,  consists  in  the  sermons  or  essays, 
written  or  spoken,  by  the  accused. 

I  take  it  for  granted  that  no  member  of 
this  Court  can  raise  a  question  as  to  the  le- 
gitimate eflect  of  the  oral  testimony  pro- 
duced before  us  on  this  trial.  If  there  was 
no  other  testimony  in  the  case  we  could  not 
long  hesitate  to  pronounce  the  defendant  in- 
nocent of  all  the  offenses  charged.  Because 
the  effect  of  this  parol  testimony  has  been  to 
establish  in  my  mind,  beyond  cavil  or  doubt, 
the  fact  of  the  entire  fidelity,  zeal  and  dili- 
gence of  Prof.  Swing  as  a  minister  of  the 
Gospel. 

Upon  the  printed  sermons  off"ered  in  evi- 
dence as  proof  of  these  various  off'enses,  the 
judgment  of  this  Court  must,  practically,  be 


ELDER  FRANCIS  A.  RIDDLES  OPINION. 


269 


Ibased — that  is,  on  the  teachings  of  these  ser- 
mons. I  can  only  speak  as  a  layman,  with 
little  knowledge  of  technical  theology,  and 
little  acquaintance  with  the  philosophy  of  re- 
ligion. These  sermons,  taken  in  their  ordi- 
nary and  obvious  import,  would  never  have 
raised  in  my  own  mind  the  suspicion  that 
the  accused  was  teaching  or  preaching  false 
doctrines  in  respect  to. the  Christian  religion; 
or  that  the  accused  was  not  faithful,  zealous 
«nd  diligent  in  maintaining  the  truths  of 
the  Gospel,  understood  by  the  Presbyterian 
Church  as  evangelical.  It  seems  to  me  this 
must  be  the  reasonable  judgment  of  every 
fair-minded,  unprejudiced  and  charitable 
man.  "What  any  man,  who  has  read  these 
sermons  and  essays  for  the  purpose  of  detect- 
ing errors  in  doctrine,  ambiguity  of  expres- 
sion, or  latent  equivocation  of  sentiment  has 
been  able  to  discover,  I  do  not  care.  "What 
I  do  maintain  is,  that  these  published  dis- 
courses, taken  in  their  natural  and  evident 
and  reasonable  import,  leaving  out  of  view 
the  strict  rules  of  technical  theology  and  the 
dogmatism  of  religious  science,  do  teach  the 
everlasting  truths  of  the  Gospel. 

It  may  be  true  that  these  sermons  do  not 
abound  with  wild  speculation  about  predesti- 
nation or  free  will.  It  may  be  true  that 
Prof.  Swing,  in  trying  to  persuade  all  men 
into  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven,  has  not  laid 
bare  the  inscrutable  decrees  of  God,  nor  even 
tried  to  make  public  the  secret  will  of  the 
Almighty ;  nor  has  he  sought  by  aid  of  the 
stern  rules  of  logic  to  show  that  "elect  in- 
fants dying  in  infancy  are  regenerated  and 
saved  by  Christ  through  the  spirit,  who  work- 
eth  when  and  where  and  how  he  pleaseth." 
All  these  doctrines,  however  true  and  how- 
ever divine  they  are,  may  be  taught  in  these 
sermons  very  indefinitely.  But  is  this  such 
an  offense  as  to  warrant  us  in  branding  our 
accused  brother  as  an  unfaithful  minister  of 
the  "Word  of  God,  and  as  lacking  in  zeal  in 
maintaining  the  truths  of  the  Gospel?  Are 
predestination  and  decrees  and  election  the 
■only,  or  the  chief  doctrines  of  the  Presbyte- 
rian Church?  Is  it  true,  as  the  prosecutor 
has  said  in  his  argument,  that  predestination 
is  the  corner-stone  upon  which  our  Church  is 
built,  and  that  if  that  be  omitted  the  Presby- 
terian Church  shall  crumble  and  fall  ?  Is  it 
true  that  Aristotle  and  not  Jesus  Christ  is  to 
be  the  law  of  wisdom  ?  I  have  been  taught 
in  my  innocence  to  believe  that  our  Church 
had  for  its  foundation  the  Rock  of  Ages,  and 


that  this  eternal  base  was  the  sure  support  of 
every  part  of  this  grand  and  honored  struc- 
ture. 1  have  been  taught,  even  in  the  Pres- 
byterian Church,  that  the  groat  want  of  fall- 
en man  was,  not  to  be  troubled  and  perplexed 
with  the  "high  mystery  of  predestination 
and  decrees  and  perseverance,"  but  to  \>q  fully 
persuaded^  by  words  of  love,  that  the  salvation 
of  Christ  was  freely  offered  to  all  men,  and 
then  to  be  led,  even  through  tears  of  sorrow 
and  penitence,  to  the  Rock  that  is  higher  than 
man. 

My  judgment  about  these  sermons  is, 
brethren,  that  by  a  fair  and  candid  interpret- 
ation they  teach  the  Gospel  of  God  as  it  was 
revealed  to  man  through  Jesus  Christ,  His 
Son  ;  that  by  a  fair  and  candid  construction 
we  find  in  them  the  sweet  spirit  of  a  loving 
Saviour ;  that  if  we  had  heard  them  with 
prayerful  attention  as  they  came  fresh  from 
an  honest  heart,  we  would  have  recognized 
the  voice  of  our  Divine  Master  calling  upon 
"  all  men  everywhere  to  repent."  I  do  not 
believe  these  sermons  teach  false  and  perni- 
cious doctrines  respecting  the  central  truths 
of  Christianity.  I  do  not  believe  that  these 
sermons  and  essays  cited  in  the  specifications 
under  Charge  first,  when  fairly  read,  convict 
the  accused  of  being  unfaithful  as  a  minister 
of  the  Gospel  in  the  Presbyterian  Church ; 
and,  so  believing,  I  cannot  conscientiously 
sustain  that  Charge.  To  do  so  would,  in  my 
opinion,  do  violence  to  every  principle  of  fair 
and  candid  criticism  and  interpretation  ;  and, 
moreover,  it  would  be  fastening  upon  the  ac- 
cused opinions  which  he  disavows,  and  find- 
ing him  guilty  of  an  offense  alleged  in  many 
of  these  specifications  to  be  only  the  conse- 
quence drawn  from  the  utterances  of  the  ac- 
cused by  the  accuser. 

For  this  Court  to  say  that  these  sermons 
teach  heresy  and  false  doctrine,  would  be  in 
effect  to  say  that  no  minister  in  our  Church 
may  question  the  conclusions  of  the  past; 
that  no  minister  shall  attempt  to  find  the 
reasons  for  the  faith  that  is  in  him,  or  seek 
by  the  spirit  of  fair  and  honest  inquiry  to 
make  lighter  the  shadows  of  the  great  Fu- 
ture. Such  a  sentence  by  this  Court  would 
be  to  discourage  free  investigation  into  the 
source  of  all  knowledge  ;  restrain  the  liber- 
ty of  mind  and  impede  the  progress  of  free 
thought.  Such  a  judgment  would  tend  to 
disparage  any  effort  or  struggle  after  higher 
and  clearer  conceptions  of  religious  truth 
than  the  world  now  holds,  and  discounten- 


270 


THE  TKIAL  OF  EEV.  DAYID  STVIXG. 


ance  all  -attempts  to  harmonize  the  laws  and 
facts  of  science  with  the  laws  and  facts  of 
God,  and  to  render  aimless  and  useless  any 
desire  in  the  heart  to  verify  the  discoveries 
of  the  soul  and  mind  by  the  revelation  of 
God  to  man.  It  would  tend  to  stifle  every 
rising  con\-iction  of  the  soul  about  things 
not  already  settled,  no  matter  how  h(>nest  it 
might  be,  by  threats  and  penalties.  It  would 
be  saying  to  a  world  eager  in  its  thirst  for  a 
surer  knowledge  of  all  things,  that  we,  as 
representative  men  of  the  Church  to  which 
we  belong,  living  in  the  midst  of  a  civiliza- 
tion, the  blaze  of  whose  glory  is  but  just 
kindled,  have  wisdom  for  all  time,  and  have 
no  need  of  further  inquiry  into  the  wide 
fields  of  eternal  Truth.  TVe  cannot  stultify 
ourselves  by  a  judgment  like  this.  Find  the 
accused  guilty  and  you  say,  so  far  as  you 
have  power,  to  the  men  whom  you  have  ap- 
pointed to  minister  to  the  infinite  wants  and 
demands  of  the  soul,  "you  must  settle  all 
the  questions  and  doubts  of  those  who  lean 
upon  you  for  that  which  gives  life  and  light 
to  the  mind,  by  assuring  them  that  the  book 
of  knowledge  is  now  sealed,  and  that  by 
command  of  the  Church  the  way  of  truth 
has  been  lost,  or  forever  obscured  by  the  mis- 
takes and  heresies  of  the  past."' 

I  cannot  sustain  the  accusations,  because  to 
do  so  would  be  to  foster  and  encourage  that 
spirit  of  priestly  bigotry  and  intolerance 
which  makes  doubt  a  crime  and  threatens 
inquiry  with  its  wrath. 

I  would  not  deny  the  value  of  that  monk- 
ish spirit  which  looks  only  backward  for  the 
truth.  Such  men  achieve  great  good  for 
their  race  by  gathering  up  and  preserving 
whatever  has  been  found  to  be  good  and  true 
in  the  past.  But  let  not  such  an  one,  as  he 
turns  from  the  past  and  approaches  toward 
the  light  and  freshness  of  the  present,  be 
startled  with  alarm  as  his  mind's  eye  falls  for 
the  first  time  upon  the  "  Truths  for  To-Day." 

I  cannot  find  Prof.  Swing  guilty  upon  the 
second  Charge,  because  it  is  not  the  preroga- 
tive of  man  to  judge  his  brother's  heart. 
Believing  the  accused  innocent  on  both  these 
charges,  I  also  trust  that  in  the  time  to  come, 
even  the  prosecutor,  when  the  fervor  of 
youth  has  been  calmed  by  the  riper  experi- 
ence of  mature  years,  and  when  his  heart 
has  been  mellowed  by  that  charity  "which 
thinketh  no  evil,"  will  yet  discover  in  his 
maligned  brother  a  man  honored  by  God  in 
the  ministry  of  the  Word  of  Life. 


The    Presbytery     then    adjourned,    with 
prayer,  until  9:30  A.  il.  May  20,  1874. 


Wednesday,  May  20,  9:30  A.  M. 

The  Presbytery  met,  and  was  opened  with, 
prayer  by  the  Moderator. 

Expressions  of  opinion  were  continued,  as 
follows : 

0PI>'I0>'    OF    ELDER   S.    B.    WILLIAMS. 

Me.  Moderatoe  :  I  had  made  a  memor- 
andum of  some  points  to  be  noticed,  but  the 
ground  has  been  so  entirely  covered  that  it  is, 
perhaps,  unnecessary  to  go  over  them.  Be- 
sides, I  have  given  away  half  of  my  time. 
I  desire  to  make  only  two  simple  state- 
ments explanatory  of  my  position. 

The  intimation  has  been  frequently  made 
on  this  floor,  and  also  through  the  public 
prints,  by  communicated  articles,  that  this 
case  was  prejudged  largely.  I  desire,  speak- 
ing for  myself  only— although  I  presume 
there  are  many  others  in  the  same  position — 
to  deny  any  such  intimation  entirely.  "When 
we  entered  upon  the  sittings  of  this  Presby- 
tery, if  I  was  prejudiced  at  all,  I  was  preju- 
diced in  favor  of  the  prosecution.  I  had  not 
heard  Prof.  Swing  preach  for  many  years. 
I  had  not  been  in  the  habit  of  reading  his 
sermons.  I  had  been  in  the  habit  of  reading 
the  Interior,  supposing,  until  recently,  that 
it  was  a  sound  Presbyterian  paper,  and  be- 
lieving that  it  was  my  duty  as  a  good  Pres- 
byterian, as  I  considered  myself,  to  support 
our  local  paper  and  to  read  it.  So  you  will 
see  that  my  nutriment  has  been  largely 
drawn  from  Prof  Patton.  For  two  days 
and  a  half,  or  three  days,  I  had  still  that 
bias.  As  the  evidence  on  the  side  of  the 
prosecution  was  developed,  I  became  pos- 
sessed with  this  idea — which  I  still  hold — 
and  it  has  been  deepened  day  by  day — that 
this  prosecution  was  commenced,  not  from 
the  fact  that  the  prosecutor  had  read  largely 
Prof.  Swing's  works,  and  finding  heresy 
wide-spread  through  them,  felt  compelled  t« 
the  position  which  he  has  taken  ;  but  I  waa 
satisfied  that  this  prosecution — in  my  own 
mind,  of  course  :  I  speak  only  for  myself — 
had  been  commenced  with  the  intention  to 
convict  Prof.  Swing  ;  and  that  the  prosecutor, 
starting  with  that  intention,  had  culled  from 
the  works  of  the  accused  such  portions — 
garbled  in  almost  every  case — as  it  was 
thought  would  tend  to  convict  him.  Hap- 
pily, in  my  opinion,   this  prosecution  has 


ELDEK  D.  R.  HOLTS  OPINION. 


271 


failed  most  decidedly  in  such  effort.  Then, 
sir,  finding  that  I  was  getting  that  impres- 
sion, I  determined  that  I  would  not  be  in- 
fluenced by  any  arguments  on  either  side, 
except  so  far  as  they  were  connected  with  the 
giving  of  testimony.  I  have  held  to  that 
intention.  I  have  listened  to  the  arguments 
with  interest  and  the  speeches  that  have  been 
made — as  arguments  and  as  speeches ;  but 
my  convictions  on  this  matter  are  entirely 
upon  the  evidence,  looked  upon,  not  from  any 
theological  standpoint,  but  simply  in  a  mat- 
ter of  fact  Avay. 

I  make  this  statement  for  myself,  as  dis- 
claiming entirely  any  prejudice,  to  show 
that  if  I  had  any  prejudice  at  the  commence- 
ment, it  was  on  the  side  of  the  prosecution. 

One  other  fact,  as  it  stands  before  ray 
mind,  I  desire  to  present;  and  that  is,  that 
whatever  the  disclaimers  may  be,  in  my 
opinion,  this  whole  prosecution  is  founded  on 
theold  issues  of  Old  and  New  School  Presbyte- 
rianism.  1  consider  it  not  as  a  personal  attack 
upon  Professor  Swing,  as  Professor  Swing.  I 
consider  it  not  entirely  as  an  attack  upon  him 
as  a  Presbyterian  minister  ;  but  I  do  consider 
it  as  an  attack  upon  him  as  an  objective  point 
for  the  opening  of  the  old  issues.  That  opin- 
ion I  shall  continue  to  hold.  I  have  not 
seen  anything  to  change  my  mind  in  regard 
to  it — neither  in  the  evidence  for  the  prose- 
cution and  defense,  nor  in  the  arguments 
that  followed  on  both  sides. 

I  have  nothing  further  to  say,  except  to 
thank  the  prosecution  for  their  eflTorts  in  my 
behalf,  in  proving  to  me  the  doctrinal  sound- 
ness of  Professor  Swing !  I  am  happy  to  say 
— for  it  is  the  solemn  conviction  of  my  heart 
that  it  is  a  happy  position  to  be  in — that  in 
the  presentation  of  the  utterances  of  Profes- 
sor Swing,  I  have  been  led  to  admire  the 
man  as  I  never  did  before,  and  have  come  to 
have  a  stronger  faith  in  him,  not  only  as  a 
Christian  minister,  but  as  an  orthodox  Pres- 
byterian, as  I  understand  Presbyterianism  : 
and  I  read  the  Interior. 


OPINION  OF    ELDER  J).  E.  HOLT. 

Mr.  Moderator  :  I  have  listened  atten- 
tively, and  I  trust,  without  prejudice,  to  the 
evidence  and  arguments  in  this  case  ;  yet  I 
cannot  say  that  I  did  not  lean  to  either  side, 
but  rather  found  myself  leaning  strongly  to 
both  sides;  so  that  it  was  somewhat  doubtful 
■with  me,  up  to  the  time  of  the  final  closing 


of  the  argument,  on  Saturday  night,  which 
way  my  judgment  would  fall;  and  deeming 
that  a  proper  time  to  arrive  at  a  just  decis- 
ion upon  the  merits  of  the  case,  rather  than 
to  wait  to  be  influenced  by  the  expression  of 
opinion  by  others,  I  made  up  this  judgment 
at  that  time. 

Believing,  as  I  do,  that  the  great  tendency 
of  the  present  time  is  towards  what  is  called 
a  more  liberal  interpretation  of  the  standards 
of  the  Church  and  of  the  Word  of  God,  and 
having  a  fear  lest  the  tide  that  has  thus 
arisen  may  increase  to  such  proportions  as  to 
endanger  the  whole  bulwark  of  Christianity, 
I  have  found  myself  impelled  to  the  necessi- 
ty of  standing  more  firmly  by  the  old  stand- 
ards ;  but  not  with  the  view  or  desire  to  pre- 
vent real  progress  ;  lest,  in  trying  to  dam 
up  the  current,  we  find  ourselves  in  the 
condition  of  the  great  Massachusetts  reser- 
voir— all  swept  away  when  the  freshet  sub- 
sides. 

With  these  views,  I  incline  to  range  my- 
self with  those  who  are  willing  to  bear  the 
burdens,  if  the  flood  of  liberalism  should 
roll  heavily  over  them,  firmly  believing  that 
an  overruling  Providence  has  a  place  for  all 
of  His  creatures  ;  and  while  all  are  not  for 
the  same  place,  yet  all  are  important  in  their 
own  sphere. 

And  now,  Mr.  Moderator,  although  view- 
ing the  case  before  us  from  that  standpoint, 
I  have  been  led  irresistibly  to  the  conclusion 
that  to  convict  the  accused  of  the  crime 
with  which  he  is  charged,  I  must  first  as- 
sume that  he  is  an  adroit  and  willful  de- 
ceiver ;  which  position,  from  all  the  evi- 
dence and  arguments  presented,  I  am  entire- 
ly unwilling  to  assume.  On  the  contrary,  I 
am  fully  satisfied  that  he  is  thoroughly  hon- 
est and  sincere  in  his  endeavors  to  teach 
evangelical  doctrines,  however  much  my 
own  views  may  differ  from  his,  as  to  the  ex- 
pediency of  his  manner  of  presenting  the 
iruth  ;  and  with  these  opinions,  I  cannot 
vote  to  sustain  either  the  specifications  or 
the  charges. 


OPINION  OF  ELDER  R.  E.   BABBXB. 

Mr.  Moderator  : —I  came  to  this  court 
entirely  unbiased  and  unprejudiced  towards 
either  of  the  parties,  but  with  predilections 
favorable  to  the  prosecutor,  who  had  preached 
to  us,  in  our  vacation,  to  our  great  edification  ; 
whose    ability    we    greatly    esteemed,    and 


272 


THE  TKIAL  OF  EEV.  DAVID  SWING. 


■whose  Christian  spirit  we  admired.  I  have 
endeavored  to  keep  myself  in  this  unpreju- 
diced position  during  all  the  proceedings  of 
this  trial,  and  1  feel  in  my  conscience  that 
the  conclusion  I  come  to  is  from  that  stand- 
point. Limited  time  requires  limited  words  ; 
therefore  I  have  written  what  I  have  to  say. 
Prof.  Patton  stated  that  his  only  motive  in 
this  case  was  the  service  of  his  Master  in  the 
cause  of  truth.  "VVe  believe  him  because  he 
said  so  ;  in  that  spirit  we  come  to  our  duty. 
The  just  judge  must  be  blind  to  parties, 
dead  to  friendship,  and  callous  to  partiality 
and  prejudice.  The  law  and  the  evidence 
are  the  only  influences  that  affect  him. 
Without  regard  to  mistakes  made  by  either 
party,  we  are  bound  to  decide  this  case  upon 
its  merits.  Coming  from  our  various  avoca- 
tions, with  our  different  minds,  culture,  and 
methods  of  enquiry,  and  examining  it  from 
our  diverse  stand-points,  we  shall  be  the  more 
likely  to  find  the  truth.  It  is  all  important 
that  our  premises  are  correctly  laid  ;  if  not, 
the  conclusion  must  be  error. 

We  are  not  a  law  unto  ourselves,  governed 
by  our  favoritism,  or  caprice,  or  predilection, 
or  antipathy.  We  sit  under  the  authority  of 
superior  judicatories,  bound  by  their  deliv- 
erances and  amenable  to  their  censure. 
Every  system  of  jurispudence  has  its  code  of 
laws  and  binding  authorities.  These  are 
supreme  in  their  respective  courts.  When 
they  fail  to  govern  a  case  at  bar,  then  ana- 
logy from  other  systems  of  jurispudence  may 
be  invoked  in  aid.  We  come  then  to  the 
fountain-head,  and  enquire  if  this  Court  has 
any  law  which  governs  this  case — any  estab- 
lished principles  which  must  be  laid  as  our 
premises.  A  judicial  opinion  which  is  not 
grounded  in  the  law  and  in  reason,  is  of  little 
weight  or  credit. 

American  Presbyterianism  has  made  a 
record,  and  not  left  us  upon  the  sea  of  con- 
jecture. It  has  a  jurispudence  well  anchored 
in  principles.  Judicially,  what  are  they  ? 
Two  of  them  have  been  cited,  to  wit : 

First:  "  A  man  cannot  be  fairly  convicted 
of  heresy  for  using  expressions  which  may  be 
so  interpreted  as  to  involve  heretical  doc- 
trines, if  they  may  also  admit  of  a  more 
favorable  construction." 

Second:  "No  man  can  rightly  be  con- 
victed of  heresy  by  inference  or  implica- 
tion." 

Other  two  have  not  been  so  clearly  stated, 
to  wit : 


Third :  "  It  is  not  right  to  charge  any  man 
with  an  opinion  which  he  disavows,"  or  with 
holding  consequences  unless  he  has  avowed 
them. 

Fourth:  A  charge  must  be  "  so  conclusive- 
ly established  as  to  remove  all  doubt." 

These  are  fundamental  principles — all 
established  by  that  leading  case  which  was 
so  skillfully  handled  in  advance  by  the  pro- 
secutor— the  Craighead  case — and  reviewed 
and  approved  thirteen  years  later  in  the 
Barnes  case.  See  New  Digest,  pages  224  and 
225,  and  Baird's  Digest,  page  703. 

Through  all  the  periods  of  commotion  and 
tranquillity,  these  principles  have  stood  hon- 
ored and  unquestioned  by  every  branch  of 
our  Church  for  half  a  century,  the  polar 
star  for  its  judicial  guidance,  and  thus  stand 
to-day.  I  hold  them,  and  each  of  them,  to 
be  incontrovertible.  A  case  that  cannot 
stand  the  test  of  each  and  all  of  them  must 
fall. 

Let  us  test  this  case  by  them. 

First,  the  allegation  must  accord  with  these 
principles,  and,  second,  must  be  proved  ac- 
cording to  the  degree  of  certainty  thereby 
required.  Examine  the  speciacations  by  the 
first  and  second  principles ;  strike  out  those 
which  do  not  negative  the  fact  that  a  more 
favorable  construction  could  not  be  given  to 
the  quotations  from  the  accused  than  the  con- 
struction which  is  alleged ;  then  strike  out 
those  which  make  their  charge  simply  by 
inference  and  implication,  and  what  have  we 
left?  By  such^an  ordeal,  the  third  specifica- 
tion under  the  second  charge  stands  solitary 
and  alone  in  the  whole  indictment. 

Inference  and  implication,  and  the  exclu- 
sion of  a  favorable  construction,  are  the  gist 
of  the  whole  indictment,  except  said  third 
specification — a  gist  which  is  barred  by  the 
first  and  second  principles. 

In  what  does  the  unfaithfulness,  etc.,  al- 
leged in  the  first  charge  consist  ?  Only  in 
teaching  of  doctrines.  No  other  ministerial 
failure  is  asserted  or  attempted  in  proof. 
Therefore  the  first  charge  must  be  tried  by 
the  same  principles  of  evidence  which  control 
the  second.  Both  pertain  to  the  same  alleged 
offense. 

With  this  indictment  before  us  for  trial, 
how  stands  the  case?  The  accused  is  a  Pres- 
byterian minister  in  his  regular  Presbyterian 
character,  and  his  utterances  can  only  be 
known  to  this  Court  in  a  Presbyterian  sense 
until  he  is  lawfully  convicted  of  some  offense 


ELDEE  E.  E.  BAEBEE'S  OPINION. 


273 


which  shall  bar  him  of  his  Presbytetial  office 
and  character.  When  he  took  that  office 
upon  him  he  avowed  the  whole  Confession  of 
Eaith.  Has  he  disavowed  any  of  its  doc- 
trines since  ?  On  the  contrary,  he  re-avows 
them  in  his  plea  and  answer,  naming  many 
of  them,  and  averring  that  he  abides  by  the 
late  New  School  theology,  which,  by  the 
whole  Church,  has  been  recognized  as  in 
conformity  with  the  standards. 

But  the  prosecutor  argues,  "if  the  accused 
does  indeed  sincerely  receive  and  adopt  the 
Confession  of  Faith,  etc.,  why  don't  he  stand 
up  here  and  say  so  ?"  Has  he  not  done  it  ? 
"What  else  means  his  plea  of  "not  guilty" 
to  that  Charge  second?  Had  he  made  an 
addendum  to  it  of, — "I  do  sincerely  receive 
and  adopt,  etc.," — it  would  have  been  mere 
tautology,  and  without  any  greater  force. 

Prof.  Patton  argues,  "  when  Prof.  Swing 
uses  language  that  may  be  constructed  in  a 
Unitarian  sense,  I  don't  know  in  which 
sense  he  uses  it,  whether  evangelical  or 
Unitarian." 

The  General  Assembly  tells  the  accuser  in 
what  sense  he  should  receive  it,  to  wit :  in 
the  most  favorable  construction. 

He  further  argues,  "when  Prof.  Swing 
uses  the  term  'Evangelical,'  I  don't  know 
.  in  what  sense  he  uses  it."  The  General 
Assembly  tells  the  prosecutor  that  he  shall 
receive  it  in  the  most  favorable  sense,  to  wit: 
the  Presbyterian  sense. 

The  whole  argument  of  the  prosecutor  has, 
seemingly,  been  forcing  the  most  unfavorable 
construction  upon  all  the  utterances  of  the 
accused,  instead  of  giving  a  brother  the  just 
advantage  of  the  most  favorable  construction 
as  Presbyterial  law  and  authorities  require. 
In  the  Craighead  case,  the  General  As- 
sembly said,  "of  the  sincerity  of  his  dis- 
avowal God  is  the  judge."  Thus,  allowing 
to  the  accused  the  full  weight  of  sincerity  in 
his  disavowal,  he  stands  entitled  to  full 
credibility  before  the  Court,  with  piety  un- 
questioned. 

After  all  the  avowals  of  the  accused,  and 
the  evidence  disproving  the  charges  and 
specifications,  the  accuser  still  reaffirms  and 
disbelieves. 

Inferences  and  implications,  and  the  ex- 
clusion of  a  favorable  construction,  are 
seemingly  the  gist  and  burden  of  the  whole 
argument.  I  hold  that  this  case  cannot  be 
maintained  on  those  first  three  principles. 
Another  principle  remains  for  us  to  con- 


sider in  its  application  to  this  case,  to  wit : 
Fourth:  A  charge  must  be  so  con':liis:vely 
established  as  to  remove  all  doubt. 

Under  criminal  law,  a  defendant  may  be 
acquitted  if  any  reasonable  doubt  of  his 
guilt  remains  under  the  evidence. 

Were  wc  the  Jurors  of  a  jury  trying  the 
defendant  under  a  criminal  indictment,  in  a 
civil  court,  and  the  evidence  was  of  similar 
character,  as  to  uncertainty,  to  that  at  bar, 
could  we  convict  ?     In  that  court,  a  defend- 
ant can  be  convicted  by  circumstantial  evi- 
dence.    Not  so  in  this  Court.     There,  he  is 
entitled  to  the  benefit  of  a  reasonable  doubt. 
Here,  he  is  entitled  to  the  benefit  of  a^i  doubt. 
There,  he  is  entitled  to  the  benefit  of  simple 
law.     Here,  to  the  additional  benefit  of  char- 
ity.     Conviction  under  ecclesiastical  law  re- 
quires greater  certainty  of  proof,  and  defi- 
niteness  of  allegation,  than  under  civil  law. 
Take,  for  illustration,  the  fifth  specification 
under  first  Charge,  which  alleges  that  the 
accused  has  omitted   to  preach  and  to  teach 
the  doctrines  commonly  known  as  evangeli- 
cal, etc.     Has   that  been  proven  beyond  all 
doubt  ?     Cite  the  sermons  in  evidence,  and 
I  the  testimony  of  the  Elders  of  the  Fourth 
Church.     Does  a  doubt  remain  that  specifi- 
cation fifth  is  not  proven  ?     If  yea,  then  the 
accused    goes     acquitted.       The    prosecutor 
dwells  on  the  fifth,  as  his  strong  specification 
to  convict  under  the  first  Charge.     If  that 
fails,  I  hold  that  all   fail.     The   prosecutor 
cites    Greenleaf  on   Evidence  to   show  that, 
while    a    defendant    can    make    admissions 
against  himself  which  bind  him,  he  cannot 
make  declarations  for  himself  in  evidence. 
That  is  a  common  law  principle  ;  but  does  he 
not  know  that,  in  this  State,  it  is  superseded 
by  statute  law,  making  a  defendant  a  com- 
petent witness  in   his  own  behalf  in  a  civil 
case?     And,  if  my  memory  is  correct,  a  bill 
passed  the  last  Legislature,  which  is  to  take 
efi'ect  next  July,  permitting  a  criminal  de- 
fendant to  testify  in  his  own  behalf.     Com- 
mon sense  is  evoked  by  the  prosecutor,  to   - 
control  this  Court  as  to  evidence.     Good  law 
is  only  good  common  sense.     This  State  ex- 
pressed  its   common   sense   by  those   enact- 
ments on  laws  of  evidsnce.     Shall  a  defend- 
ant be  permitted  to  testify  in  his  own  behalf 
in  a  civil  court,  on  questions  of  property, 
liberty,  and  life,  and  be  debarred  that  right 
in  a  Christian  court  on  questions  of  ministe- 
rial integrity,   fidelity,  and  character?      Is 
that  common  sense,  or  Christian  sense?     In 


274 


THE  TKIAL  OF  KEY.  DAVID  SWING. 


the  Craighead  case,  cited  supra,  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  said  that  "the  first  charge, 
though  supported  hy  strong  probabilities,  is 
not  so  conclusively  established  as  to  remove 
all  doubt,  because  the  words  adduced  in 
proof  will  hear  a  different  construction,  etc." 

It  ought  to  be  remembered  that  Professor 
Swing,  in  his  defense,  utterly  disclaims  the 
meaning  adduced  from  his  words.  This,  then, 
is  the  law  of  evidence  for  our  guidance, 
and  not  Greenleaf,  on  forbidding  a  party  to 
make  declarations  in  his  own  favor. 

Objection  is  still  urged  to  the  competency 
of  the  parole  evidence  of  the  Fourth  Church 
elders.  I  hold  it  strictly  competent,  under 
the  fifth  specification,  to  disprove  the  allega- 
tion of  omission  to  teach,  &c.,  and  also  to 
disprove  the  allegation  of  omission  to  preach, 
&c.,  for  failure  properly  to  object  to  it  in  apt 
time  as  secondary  evidence.  Note  the  de- 
gree of  evidence  required  by  the  General 
Assembly,  in  said  case  cited,  in  order  to  con- 
vict, to-wit :  "clearly  proved,"  "so  conclu- 
sively established  as  to  remove  all  doubt." 
Has  it  been  done  in  this  ease  ?  I  think  not. 
It  is  argued  that  the  accused  is  claimed  by 
the  Unitarians.  Base  coin  always  claims 
the  genuine,  so  as  to  give  currency  to  its 
own  circulation.  It  is  further  argued  that 
the  accused  drives  his  theological  chaise  so 
near  the  Unitarian  line  that  one  cannot  tell 
on  which  side  of  it  he  is. 

Por  argument's  sake  admit  it.  Can  we 
convict  for  that  ?  No.  Why  ?  Because 
■we  must  first  know  that  he  is  clearly  on  the 
wrong  side  of  the  line,  and  that  fact  must 
then  be  pertinently  alleged  and  proven  to 
the  requisite  degree  of  certainty.  Doubts 
count  nothing  for  conviction.  Strong  prob- 
abilities, even,  are  insufiicient. 

These  four  principles,  on  which  I  base 
this  opinion,  as  the  premises  from  which  I 
reach  my  conclusion,  are  not  only  princi- 
ples of  common  sense,  but  they  are  also 
principles  of  the  Christian  statute  as  lived 
and  taught  by  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus 
Christ.  His  whole  life  and  teaching  illus- 
trate and  enforce  these  principles.  We 
cannot  do  so  well  as  to  follow  His  example. 

One  other  reason  for  my  opinion.  The 
prosecutor  claims  conviction  on  extracts 
urged  in  defiance  of  the  principles  I  have 
considered.  Such  a  claim  is  rejected  in  law 
without  regard  to  those  principles,  and,  I 
take  it,  would  not  be  recognized  in  ethics  or 
religion.     Judgment  of  a  document  by  ex- 


tracts is  extremely  hazardous  to  truth  and 
justice.  The  whole  context  must  be  consid- 
ered, and  the  document  construed  as  a  whole. 
To  illustrate  how  different  the  larger  quota- 
tions sounded,  which  were  made  from  the 
sermons  in  evidence  by  the  counsel  for  the 
accused,  from  the  brief  extracts  made  by  the 
prosecutor,  instance  the  sermon  on  Regenera- 
tion, and  on  Good  Works,  etc.  To  further  il- 
lustrate: the  Interior,  in  its  issue  of  April  16, 
1874,  in  an  editorial  article  entitled,  "Liberty 
of  Conscience,"  taught  to  wit — "Christianity 
is  the  religion  of  manhood  and  self-reliaijce." 
What  does  that  mean  ?  Is  that  ambiguous 
or  orthodox  ?  Test  it  by  the  Confession  of 
Faith,  chapter  viii,  sec.  8,  which  teaches  the 
doctrine  of  Christ,  the  Mediator,  and  the 
operations  of  the  Spirit.  That  quoted  sen- 
tence, severed  from  its  context,  may  be  made 
to  teach  that  Christianity  is  the  religion,  or 
system  of  faith  and  worship,  of  manhood  and 
self-reliance — a  humanitarianism — instead  of 
the  system  of  doctrines  and  precepts  taught 
by  Christ  and  recorded  by  the  evangelists 
and  apostles. 

Vagueness  and  ambiguity  are  strongly 
complained  of  and  argued.  Yet,  with  all 
the  mental  acumen  of  the  prosecutor,  and 
with  all  the  care  and  study,  revision  and 
perspicuity  of  a  pleader,  drafting  an  indict- 
ment for  court  which  was  to  be  heralded 
to  the  world,  and  under  a  law  requiring  de- 
finitene&s  and  precision  of  statement,  the 
third  specification  is  in  terms  which,  by  con- 
struction, attacked  the  character  of  a  de- 
ceased christian  woman  ;  and  the  prosecutor 
asks  leave  of  the  Court  to  answer  it  so  as  to 
define  his  intended  meaning.  Yet  he  ar- 
raigns a  brother  for  using  language  in  his 
popular  discourses,  which,  without  doubt, 
was  the  first  flow  from  his  mind,  and  with- 
out the  care  of  revision  and  mature  consid- 
eration, as  being  vague  and  indefinite. 

"  Faith,  Hope  and  Charity,  these  three,  but 
the  greatest  of  these  is  Charity," 

The  General  Assembly  said  in  the  Craig- 
head case,  in  explaining  the  first  principle 
above  stated:  "Because  no  one  can  tell  in 
what  sense  an  ambiguous  expression  is  used 
but  the  author,  and  he  has  a  right  to  explain 
himself,  and,  in  such  cases,  candor  requires 
that  a  court  should  favor  the  accused  by  put- 
ting on  his  words  the  more  favorable,  rather 
than  the  less  favorable  construction." 

I  consider  each  specification  in  connection 
with  the  charge  under  which  it  is  laid,  and 


KEY.  WM.  BEECHEE'S  OPINIOK 


275 


if,  under  the  principles  we  have  considered, 
it  fails  to  support  the  charge,  it  is  not 
proven. 

We  regret  the  imputation  made,  that  the 
Court  may  acquit  the  accused,  but  cannot  do 
it  in  conscience  ;  for  the  Confession  of  Faith 
and  the  Scriptures  teach  us  that  "  God  alone 
is  Lord  of  the  conscience  ;"  and  the  further 
imputation  of  the  ignorance  of  the  Court  as  to 
what  the  alleged  omitted  doctrines  are,  in 
case  the  Court  does  find  the  doctrines  in  the 
sermons  under  the  law  and  the  evidence.  I 
find  no  doubt  in  conscience  or  judgment  in 
deciding  the  charges  and  specifications,  each 
and  all  of  them,  not  sustained. 


The  opinions  which  follow  were  given  by 
corresponding  members  of  the  Presbytery. 

OPINION  OF  REV.  WM.  BEECHER. 

Mr.  Moderator  :  Did  you  ever  know  a 
Beecher  that  had  a  chance  to  speak  that 
didn't?  In  the  next  place  you  know  that 
the  Scripture  says:  "The  old  war-horse 
smelleth  the  battle  afar  off."  Now,  I  was 
in  a  Congregational  pasture,  and  I  smelt  the 
battle,  and  broke  bounds,  and  came  down 
here.  It  is  said  that  an  old  war-horse  that 
had  been  through  many  wars,  hearing  the 
drum  sound,  broke  through,  and  joined  the 
troops  and  made  the  charge  with  the  rest, 
although  he  had  no  rider.  It  is  somewhat 
80  with  me. 

Now,  I  was  born  in  the  Presbyterian 
Church — in  the  Presbytery  of  Long  Island. 
My  father,  however,  was  born  a  Congrega- 
tionalist,  and  my  mother  was  an  Episco- 
palian. So  you  see  there  are  three  bloods  in 
me,  and  I  believe  that  blood  will  tell.  And 
some  of  my  sisters — two  of  them — have  felt 
the  power  of  the  Episcopal  blood,  and  have 
gone  over  to  that  Church — they  being  the 
weaker  vessels.  Among  seven  sons  of  my 
father,  not  one  of  them  forsook  the  old  ways. 

"Well,  then,  the  early  part  of  my  life  hav- 
ing been  spent  in  the  Presbyterian  Church,  I 
love  the  old  Church ;  and  I  love  the  old 
Catechism ;  and  I  am  free  to  say,  that  in  all 
my  rninistry,  the  definitions  of  the  old  Cate- 
chism have  been  a  very  great  aid  and  help  to 
me.  I  doubt  if  the  definitions  of  doctrine  in 
that  old  Catechism  can  ever  be  surpassed  by 
any  emendation  or  any  addition  or  subtrac- 
tion, although  there  ipay  be  some  doctrines 
in  the  Confession  of  Faith  that  should  be 
modified  somewhat  in  view  ot  the  Reunion 


between  the  Old  and  New  School  branches 
of  the  Church. 

Well,  now,  I  am  not  going  into  the  merits 
of  this  discussion,  being  a  corresponding 
member.  You  see  I  have  spoken  on  points 
of  order,  from  time  to  time,  but  have  never 
said  a  word,  since  I  have  been  here,  in  re- 
gard to  any  merits  of  the  case,  although  I 
have  mj'  own  notion,  from  the  evidence  I 
have  heard — and  I  have  been  here  every  day, 
at  every  meeting — that  it  is  impossible,  ac- 
cording to  Christian  rule,  or  according  to 
Presbj'terian  rule,  to  convict  the  brother  on 
any  one  of  the  charges  or  specifications. 
That  seems  to  me  to  be  the  truth. 

Now,  I  want  to  say  a  word,  and  quote  a 
text  or  two  of  Scripture,  which  is  our  ulti- 
mate standard.  The  disciples  came  to  Jesus, 
you  remember,  and  complained  that  some 
others  were  working  miracles,  and  yet  fol- 
lowed not  with  them ;  and  the  Lord  said : 
"  No  man  can  do  a  miracle  in  my  name,  and 
lightly  speak  evil  of  me."  What  was  the 
princij)le  involved?  You  all  see  what  it 
was.  Now,  Prof.  Swing  has  done  some  mir- 
acles— moral  miracles.  He  has  brought  infi- 
dels over  to  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  He  has 
gathered  a  vast  number  of  unbelievers  to 
Christianity,  that  would  not  attend  Presby- 
terian preaching  or  any  Evangelical  preach- 
ing, to  hear  him.  He  has  led  them  to  hear 
Gospel  truth  in  a  way  that  they  would  re- 
ceive it,  and  thus  has  prepared  them  to  take 
stronger  meat.  He  has  fed  them  with  milk, 
if  you  please,  because  they  were  not  able  to 
bear  meat,  and  at  last  led  them  to  the  point 
where  they  could  bear  meat. 

Then,  again,  about  this  matter  of  faith. 
The  Apostle  Paul  tells  us  that  "with  the 
heart,  man  believeth  unto  righteousness." 
Is  that  Presbyterianism  ?  "And  with  the 
lips  confession  is  made."  The  lips  give  the 
formula,  but  the  heart  is  the  essential  of 
faith.  Well,  Prof.  Swing  says  that  faith  is 
an  emotion,  or  a  feeling  of  the  heart  direct- 
ly connected  with  holy  living. 

Further,  I  desire  to  say  that  I  have  been 
highly  gratified  with  the  spirit  that  has  been 
manifest  in  this  Court.  I  have  attended  a 
great  many  ecclesiastical  trials.  I  was  pres- 
ent at  the  ecclesiastical  trial  of  mj'  honored 
father,  Dr.  Lyman  Beecher,  where  the  true 
question  which  was  up,  as  between  the  par- 
ties, was  the  interpretation  of  the  Confession 
of  Eaith.  One  side  contended  for  its  inter- 
pretation  in  the  strict  Calvinistic  sense,  like 


276 


THE  TEIAL  OF  KEY.  DAVID  SWING. 


my  brother  here  (  Prof.  Patton.)  My  father 
contended  that  the  interpretation  of  the 
Confession  which  he  held  was  the  true  one, 
according  to  those  who  made  it,  and  accord- 
ing to  the  views  of  the  older  Church,  and  of 
the  modern  Church.  Well,  the  Presbytery 
sustained  my  father,  and  the  Synod  sustain- 
ed him,  and  it  went  up  to  the  General  As- 
sembly, and  the  brethren  came  and  said  to 
the  prosecutor,  "You  must  ask  leave  to  with- 
draw your  appeal,  for  Dr.  Beecher  will  cer- 
tainly carry  the  day  against  you."  So  that 
the  New  School  interpretation  of  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith  was  sustained  by  the  three 
judicatories.  Whatever  brethren  may  say,  it 
strikes  me  as  a  fact,  that  in  reality,  the  ques- 
tion is  upon  whether  the  interpretation  of 
the  Confession  of  Faith  shall  be  the  extreme 
Old  School  or  Calvinistic,  or  whether  it 
shall  be  the  New  School  interpretation.  If 
it  is  the  New  School  interpretation,  Swing  is 
clear — he  swings  clear. 

Now,  sir,  I  beg  leave  to  say,  again,  that  I 
have  been  gratified  with  the  kindly  and 
Christian  spirit  that  has  been  manifested 
here.  I  have  never  attended  a  meeting  of 
this  sort  where  there  was  less  acrimony,  less 
of  unkind  and  ungenerous  feeling.  Why, 
we  must  expect,  when  Greek  meets  Greek, 
the  tug  of  war  will  come,  and  when  flint 
and  steel  meet,  we  must  expect  that  fire  will 
be  struck.  We  must  expect  that,  and  take 
it  as  a  matter  of  course.  But  there  has  been 
no  unkind  feeling,  that  I  have  seen,  mani- 
fested on  this  floor  ;  and  I  am  highly  grati- 
fied that  it  has  been  so.  And  I  have  been 
exceedingly  gratified  with  the  able  and 
Christian  manner  in  which  the  Moderator 
has  conducted  this  meeting — this  whole  af- 
fair. I  know,  by  personal  experience,  the 
difficulties  of  the  case,  and  I  say  he  has 
done  admirably.  Although  on  some  minor 
points  I  have  thought  the  rulings  not  aufait, 
yet,  as  a  general  fact,  he  has  conducted  the 
affairs  of  this  court  with  admirable  Christian 
firmness,  intelligence  and  ability. 

Now,  brethren,  I  am  an  old  man.  When 
I  began  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  I  was 
as  fierce  for  a  fight  as  any  man,  and  they 
used  to  say,  when  I  spoke,  "  Beecher's  mad — 
see  how  his  face  flushes  up."  Now,  I 
wouldn't  give  much  for  a  man  who  hasn't 
blood  enough  in  his  body  to  fted  his  brain 
while  he  is  using  it. 

The  last  church  I  was  settled  over,  was 
the  church  in  North  Brookfield,  Massachu- 


setts. Dr.  Snell,  who  had  been  for  a  long 
period  of  years  the  pastor  there,  when  he 
came  to  lie  on  his  death-bed,  was  in  great 
distress  of  mind,  and  sent  for  me  to  come 
and  see  him.  "  Oh,  Brother  Beecher,"  he 
said,  "  I  am  such  a  sinner;  oh  !  I  am  such 
a  sinner  ;  no  hope."  I  saw  at  once  that  he 
needed  a  plaster  put  on — a  blister  plaster. 
Said  I,  "  Brother  Snell,  you  are  a  greater 
sinner  than  j'ou  ever  had  any  conception  of 
— than  you  ever  had  any  thought  of;  you 
are  a  great  sinner,  and  I  am  a  great  sinner 
— and  there  is  no  salvation  for  you,  or  me 
but  in  the  single  way,  and  that  is  to  cast 
yourself  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  died 
for  you  and  me  ;  and  if  you  don't  do  it  now, 
you  are  a  lost  man  ?"     He  did  it. 

I  did  not  preach  Election.  I  did  not 
preach  Decrees.  I  did  not  preach  Foreordi- 
nation.  I  did  not  preach  Predestination.  I 
did  not  preach  anything  of  the  kind.  I 
brought  him  right  up  to.  the  view  of  Christ 
as  a  Saviour  for  lost  sinners,  and  said,  "  Cast 
yourself  on  Jesus  ;  "  and  he  did  it,  and  died 
triumphant.  And  there  is  where  every  one 
of  you  will  come ;  there  is  where  the  prose- 
cutor will  come ;  there  is  where  Swing  will 
come:  lam  pretty  near  there.  As  I  told  you, 
I  have  been  fierce  for  this,  and  fierce  for  that, 
but  the  longer  I  have  lived,  the  more  I  have 
come  to  this:  Jesus  Christ  first,  middle,  and 
without  end ;  Jesus  Christ  and  Him  cruci- 
fied ;  not  Jesus  Christ  the  God,  nor  Jesus 
Christ  the  man,  nor  Jesus  Christ  the  teacher, 
nor  Jesus  Christ  the  exemplar  :  those  are  all 
well ;  but  Jesus  Christ  and  Him  crucified ; 
aud  as  I  come  nearer  towards  heaven,  Christ 
grows  brighter  and  brighter,  and  all  that  I 
now  feel  and  care  for  is  to  glorify  and  honor 
that  glorious  Piedeemer,  who  loved  me,  and 
gave  Himself  for  me. 


OPINION  OF    DR.  A.  D.  EDDY. 

Mr.  Moderator:  I  came  here  this  morn- 
ing with  the  determination  not  to  make  any 
remarks  whatever,  and  I  have  been  in  the 
room  but  two  minutes :  I  came  in  since 
Brother  Beecher  commenced  his  remarks.  I 
feel  a  deep  desire  not  to  say  one  word,  and 
but  for  the  impellings,  as  I  humbly  think,  of 
the  Spirit  of  God,  and  a  conviction  of  impe- 
rious duty,  I  should  not  say  one  word; 
neither  the  state  of  my  nervous  system,  nor 
my  personal  relation  to  this  matter,  would 


KEV.  DE.  A.  D.  EDDY'S  OPINION. 


277 


lead  me  to  take  the  responsibility  which  I 
now  take  upon  myself. 

It  is  known  by  many  here  that  I  was  the 
founder  of  the  church  of  which  Prof.  Swing 
is  the  pastor — the  honored  pastor,  the  be- 
loved pastor,  the  useful  pastor.  The  struggles 
which  I  have  been  through,  in  connection 
with  the  early  history  of  that  church,  are 
also  well  known.  It  is  well  known  that  the 
two  beloved  men  who  succeeded  me,  did  so 
at  the  expense  of  their  lives.  That  church 
was  the  cause  of  their  death,  I  humblj' be- 
lieve. They  loved  it.  They  served  it.  Thej- 
died  in  the  service — one  of  thom  ;  the  other 
soon  after.  I  have  watched  the  interests  of 
that  church  from  that  day  to  this.  In  the 
providence  of  God,  though  my  home  is  a 
thousand  miles  away  from  here — in  the  prov- 
idence of  God,  through  the  calls  of  disease 
and  death,  I  am  required  to  be  here  more 
than  half  my  time.  I  have  been  almost  a 
constant  attendant,  when  here,  upon  the 
preaching  of  Professor  Swing. 

Now,  Mr.  Moderator,  I  am  not  going  to 
say  anything  in  regard  to  the  merits  of  this 
great  question.  I  sympathize  with  both 
partias.  I  am  the  oldest  man  in  this 
Presbytery  in  point  of  years,  and  in  point  of 
relation  to  the  Presbytery,  except  Dr.  Patter- 
son; ho  is  the  only  man  on  which  my  eye 
rests  that  was  here  when  I  came  and  con- 
nected myself  with  this  Presbytery,  and  had 
the  privilege  of  founding  the  Westminster 
Church. 

Now  you  would  naturally  suppose  that  I 
should  take  some  interest  in  this  church  and 
its  pastor.  I  do  take  an  interest  in  the 
church  and  its  pastor  ;  and  1  take  a  more 
sacred  interest — a  more  solemn  interest — in 
the  great  Church  of  the  living  God  through- 
out our  land  and  throughout  the  world. 
Born  into  the  Presbyterian  Church,  nursed 
in  its  lap,  and  early  taught  the  Westaiinster 
Catechism,  I  have  always  been  accustomed 
to  venerate  that  system — call  it  what  you 
please.  Now,  I  want  to  say  that  I  sympa- 
thize with  Prof.  Patton.  I  have  been  over  this 
land,  the  length  and  the  breadth  of  it,  again 
and  again,  for  the  last  fifteen  years.  I  must 
say  that  throughout  the  length  and  breadth 
of  this  land,  there  is  a  growing  indifference 
to  the  cause  of — I  will  not  say  Calvinism, 
the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith — but  a 
growing  indifference  to  the  truth  of  God  as 
it  is  in  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord.  A  short  time 
ago,    a   man   assailed   me    severely    on   the 


character  of  our  Westminster  Confession.  I 
defended  it  and  argued  against  the  construc- 
tion he  put  upon  it.  "  Well,"  he  said,  "  it 
don't  make  much  difference  whether  it  is  in 
there  or  not ;  it  is  in  St.  Paul's  writings,  if 
it  is  not  in  the  Catechism."  The  drift  of  the 
sentiment,  in  this  country  now,  is  rather 
from  those  sublime  sentiments  upon  which 
our  faith  is  built.  Now,  sir,  taking  the 
position  that  Prof.  Patton  does,  and  assum- 
ing all  the  responsibility  that  is  upon  his 
hands,  I  do  not  wonder  at  all  that  he  feels 
deeply  upon  this  subject.  I  know,  sir,  that 
much  has  been  said  about  the  position  of  the 
General  Assembly'  of  the  Church  at  the 
Reunion.  I  know  something  about  that,  sir. 
I  was  in  it  from  beginning  to  end,  and  I  am 
the  only  living  man  on  the  face  of  the  earth 
that  was,  in  the  beginning,  on  the  committee 
to  which  the  subject  of  the  overture  of  Dr. 
Crane  was  referred  ;  I  am  the  only  living 
man  who  was  on  that  committee  ;  and  that 
was  the  commencement  of  the  division. 

Now,  sir,  I  am  going  to  make  a  remark 
that  will  astonish  you  and  many  others. 
Previous  to  that,  came  the  trial  of  Albert 
Barnes.  I  know  all  about  that.  Brother 
Barnes  and  I  were  more  intimately  related 
than  you  know  of,  perhaps.  That  trial  was 
not  on  the  ground  of  sentiment  alone.  The 
decision  you  have  all  heard.  Then  came 
questions  that  ultimately  drove  the  wedge 
that  divided  our  Church.  I  say  now,  in 
the  presence  of  my  God  and  Saviour,  that 
I  verily  believe,  and  I  think  I  have  at 
home  the  fullest  proof  that  any  man  can  ask, 
that  the  division  did  not  grow  out  of  doc- 
trinal sentiment ;  and  at  the  proper  time, 
God  sparing  my  life,  I  shall  present  that 
evidence.  For,  if  it  grew  out  of  that,  Avhy 
did  some  of  the  New  School  men  fall  on  one 
side  and  some  on  the  other?  When  the  line 
came  to  be  drawn,  it  was  not  a  quc-tinn  of 
sentiment.  And  so  it  was  at  the  time  Dr. 
Beecher,  the  elder,  was  ip.  Philadelphia 
called  to  the  Arch  St.  Church.  Was  it  a 
question  of  doctrinal  belief?  Why,  every 
Old  School  man,  and  every  pastor  in  Phil- 
adelphia, and  every  one  of  the  professors  of 
the  Princeton  Thecilogical  Seminary  signed 
and  sent  a  most  earnest  letter  to  Dr.  Beecher 
that  he  would  accept  the  pa,«torate  of  the 
Arch  Street  Church  of  Philadelphia.  Dr. 
Beecher's  sentiments  were  known,  I  rather 
think,  at  that  time.  Right  in  the  midst  of 
that  time,  during  the  action  of  those  forces 


278 


THE  TEIAL  OF  EEV.  DAVID  SWING. 


that  finally  united  to  separate  us,  the  separa- 
tion came  from  the  views  of  men  in  Phila- 
delphia and  Scotch  Presbyterianism ;  the 
good  old  lovers  of  the  Catechism,  fearful  of 
that  dark,  distant  Unitarian  question  that 
was  coming  up  like  a  cloud,  and  filling  the 
whole  atmosphere  with  mist  and  pestilence 
and  moral  pollution  ;  it  was  the  New  Eng- 
land spirit. 

But  my  time  will  soon  be  exhausted.  I 
want  to  say  that  I  do  sympathize  with  Prof. 
Patton.  And  let  me  say  that  I  do  believe 
it  is  in  the  power  of  a  few  of  you  here,  by 
advising  together,  to  have  this  whole  thing 
ended  peaceabh-  and  happily.  I  believe  if 
you  v.'ill  appoint  a  judicious  committee — or 
I  do  not  know  as  the  appointment  of  a  spe- 
cial committee  is  necessary, — and  Professor 
Swing  will  lay  those  declarations,  that  he 
has  made  before  it,  this  whole  thing  can  be 
ended  satisfactorily  to  all  parties.  I  heartily 
and  honestly  believe  this,  and  I  have  reason 
for  doing  so.  That  is  my  firm  conviction, 
that  the  whole  thing  can  be  arranged,  and 
you  will  fall  back  into  harmony  and  happi- 
ness, and  the  blessing  of  God  will  fall  upon 
you. 

I  want  to  say  one  thing  more.  I  don't 
think  it  was  right  for  Brother  Spear  to  send 
the  letter  he  did  ;  and  I  do  not  think  it  was 
right  for  Brother  Trowbridge  to  say  any- 
thing about  it. 

Mr.  Trowbridge:  I  did  not  say  anything 
about  it. 

The  opinions  of  the  Court  were  here  con- 
cluded. 


The  following  resolution  was  adopted  : 

Resolved,  that  the  vote  be  taken  on  the 
several  Charges  and  specifications  at  one 
calling  of  the  roll — each  member,  as  his 
name  is  called,  voting  "sustained,"  or  "not 
sustained." 

Another  resolution  was  adopted,  as  fol- 
lows : 

Resolved,  that  the  vote  on  each  specifica- 
tion be  upon  its  moral  hearing  as  sustaining, 
or  not  sustaining,  the  guilt  alleged  in  the 
Charge  under  which  it  is  placed. 

It  was  also  resolved  that  it  is  allov/able  to 
vote,  "sustained  in  part,"  if  any  member  so 
desire. 

The  Koll  was  then  called,  and  the  vote 
was  recorded  by  the  clerks. 

A  Committee,  consisting  of  Ilevs.  R.  W. 
Patterson,  D.  D.,  James  McLeod,  and  Elder 
E,  E.  Barber,    were   appointed   to   examine 


the  vote   and   bring   in  the  finding  of  the 
Court. 

Eccess  was  taken  until  2  o'clock   P.  M 


2  o'clock  p.  m. 


Inter  alia  : 


The  Committee  appointed  to  present  th 
verdict  of  the  Court  reported. 

The  report  was  adopted,  and  is  as  follows: 

The  Committee  find,  from  the  record  of 
the  clerks,  that  the  vote  of  the  Presbytery, 
in  this  case,  stood  as  follows  :  61  votes  were 
cast,  of  which  15  were  in  favor  of  sustaining 
the  first  charge,  and  13  for  sustaining  the 
second  charge ;  46  against  sustaining  the 
first  charge,  and  48  against- sustaining  the 
second  charge.  We,  therefore,  find  that  the 
accused  has  been  acquitted  ^of  both  the 
charges  by  the  judgment  of  this  Court,  as 
aforesaid. 

[Signed.]  E.  W.  Patterson. 

James  McLeod. 
E.  E.  Barber. 

Prof.  Patton,  thereupon,  gave  notice  that 
he  should  appeal  from  the  decision  of  the 
Presbytery,  in  this  case,  to  the  Synod  of 
Illinois  North. 

The  following  resolution  was  adopted  : 

Resolved,  that  a  Committee  be  appointed 
for  the  purpose  of  supervising  the  publica- 
tion of  a  correct  history  of  the  trial  of  the  Eev. 
David  Swing,  before  this  Presbytery,  and 
that  said  Committee  consist  of  Eevs.  David 
S.  Johnson,  Francis  L.  Patton  and  George 
C.  Noyes. 

The  following  resolution  was  also  adopted: 

Resolved,  that  the  Committee  on  the  find- 
ing of  the  Court  be  instructed  to  report  the 
reasons  for  the  final  judgment  at  the  next 
meeting. 

At  his  own  request,  Eev.  J.  McLeod  was 
excused  from  serving  on  the  Committee,  and 
Eev.  Dr.  Arthur  Swazey  was  appointed  in 
his  place. 

The  Presbytery  then  adjourned  with 
prayer,  to  meet  on  Monday,  May  25th,  at 
10.30, A.  M.  in  the  Presbyterian  Eoom, 
McCormick's  Block,  Chicago. 


Monday,  May  25th,  10.30  A.  M. 

The  Presbytery  met  in  the  Presbyterian 
Eoom,  McCormick's  Block,  and  was  opened 
with  prayer. 

Inter  alia: 

The  Committee  appointed  to  prepare  rea- 
sons for  the  decision  of  the  Court  in  the  trial 
of  Eev.  David  Swing,  reported  as  follows, 
which  was  adopted : 


EEASONS  rOE  THE  DECISION. 


279 


Both  of  the  Charges  against  Mr.  Swing  are 
negative  in  form,  and  devolved  upon  the 
prosecutor  tlie  hibor  of  provhig  a  negative. 
Much  depends  in  this  ease~upon  a  correct 
statonent  of  the  questions  at  issue.  It  is  not 
tlie  '|uestion : 

1.  AVhat  we  may  believe,  for'private  rea- 
sons, in  regard  to  the  real  views  of  Mr. 
Swing.  We  must  be  governed  by  the  evi- 
dence, and  not  by  private  opinions,  in  our 
judgment  as  a  Court. 

2.  It  is  not  the  question  what  Mr.  Swing 
may  do  in  the  future.  "We  are  confined  to 
the  evidence  of  what  he  has  said  or  done,  or 
failed  to  do  or  say. 

3.  It  is  not  the  question  whether  Mr.  Swing 
occu])ies  such  a  position,  or  habitually  uses 
such  expressions  in  his  preaching,  as  are 
satisfactory  to  us  all.  He  may  assume  an 
attitude  in  relation  to  skeptics  or  errorists 
whicli  some  of  us  deem  too  liberal,  and  he 
may  employ  many  expressions  which  to  most 
of  us  seem  not  sufficiently  guarded,  and  yet 
be  guilty  of  no  heresy,  and  of  no  such  unfaith- 
fulness as  constitutes  an  ecclesiastical  ot!ense. 
The  question,  as  it  regards  the  kindly  treat- 
ment of  errorists,  is  one  about  which  our 
Church  has  no  positive  rule  of  judgment. 

4.  It  is  not  the  question  whether  the  views 
of  Mr.  Swing  in  regard  to  the  relative  im- 
portance of  formulated  theology  are  or  are 
not  correct.  A  man  may  judge  erroneously 
on  this  point,  and  yet  hold  all  the  essential 
doctrines  of  Evangelical  Christianity,  and  of 
the  Calvinistic  system,  and  preach  the  Gospel 
with  fidelity. 

5.  It  is  not  the  question  whether  Mr.  Swing 
is  right  or  wrong  in  his  opinion  regarding 
the  extent  to  which  our  Church  at  this  day 
actually  holds  to  the  letter  of  our  formulas 
of  faith,  or  insists  upon  the  propositions  con- 
tained in  our  Confession.  He  may  for  him- 
self sincerely  receive  and  adopt  the  Confes- 
sion as  "containing  the  system  of  doctrine 
taught  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,"  and  yet  be 
mistaken  as  to  the  sense  in  which  the  Church 
requires  its  ministers  to  hold  the  Calvinis- 
tic system. 

6.  It  is  not  the  question  whether  Mr. 
Swing's  judgment  in  regard  to  the  best  style 
of  preaching  is  strictly  correct  or  not.  There 
are  great  varieties  of  judgment  on  this  sub- 
ject allowed  by  our  Church,  inasmuch  as  we 
have  no  authorized  definition  of  what  faith- 
ful preaching  is.  Only  such  styles  of  preach- 
ing as  studiously  and  designedly  avoid  Chris- 
tian truth,  or  clearly  inculcate  essential 
error,  can  be  justly  regarded  as  involving  an 
offense  in  the  ecclesiastical  sense. 

7.  It  is  not  the  question  whether  Mr.  Swing 
has  been  unfaithful,  as  all  imperfect  men  are, 
in  preaching  ditt'erent  truths  more  or  less  out 
of  their  due  jiroportions  ;  for  on  this  point 
we  have  no  absolute  standard  of  ecclesiastical 
judgment. 

8.  Nor  is  it  the  question  whether  Mr. 
Swing  has  been  claimed  by  Unitarians,  or 
suspected  of  error  by  some  orthodox  people  ; 
for  all  this  has  been  true  of  sound  men  who 
were  not  specially  unfaithful,  but  were  either 


unfortunate  in  their  modes  of  expression,  or 
surrounded  by  persons  who  were  for  one 
reason  or  another  inclined  to  misconstrue 
their  words  or  ]K)sition.  Such  circumstances 
do  not  by  themselves  prove  either  error  of 
doctrine  or  ministerial  unfaithfulness  in  such 
a  sense  as  constitutes  an  ecclesiastical  offense. 
But  the  questions  are  these  and  only  these  : 

1.  Whether  it  has  been  conclusively  proved 
that  Mr.  Swing  does  not  personally  hold  all 
the  doctrines  that  are  by  our  Church  regarded 
as  essential  to  the  system  of  doctrine  taught 
in  the  Confession  and  in  the  Holy  Scriptures. 

2.  Whether  it  has  been  proved  beyond  a 
doubt  that  he  has  been  unfaithful  in  the  dis- 
charge of  his  ministerial  duty  in  such  a  sense 
as  to  constitute  an  ecclesiastical  offense. 

These  questions  the  Presbytery  has  an- 
swered in  the  negative  for  the  following 
reasons  : 

1.  Mr.  Swing's  position  as  a  Presbyterian 
minister  who  has  solemnly  professed  to  re- 
ceive and  adopt  our  Confession  as  "contain- 
ing the  system  of  doctrine  taught  in  the  Holy 
Scriptures,"  and  has  engaged  to  perform  all 
his  ministerial  duties  with  fidelity,  obliges 
us  to  regard  him  as  orthodox  and  faithful 
imtil  the  contrary  is  incontestably  establish- 
ed, not  by  inferential  reasonings  from  his 
statements,  but  by  undeniable  and  direct 
proofs.  But  such  proofs,  in  our  judgment, 
have  not  been  produced.  The  alleged  eviden- 
ces, to  be  conclusive,  require  us  to  assume 
that  Mr.  Swing  has  been  artfully  and  syste- 
matically acting  the  part  of  a  willful  deceiver, 
who  ought  to  be  indicted  for  the  most  wicked 
and  shameless  hypocrisy.  But  we  dare  not 
assume  such  a  ground  without  overwhelm- 
ing evidence. 

2.  Mr.  Swing  has  denied  the  charges  against 
him  in  his  declaration;  has  affirmed  that  he 
is  a  New  School  Presbyterian,  and  has  asser- 
ted that  he  holds  in  the  evangelical  sense 
"The  Inspiration  of  the  Holy  Scriptures," 
"The  Trinity,"  "The  Divinity  of  Christ," 
"The  Office  of  Christ  as  a  Mediator  when 
grasped  by  an  obedient  faith,"  "Conversion 
by  God's  iSpirit,"  "Man's  natural  sinfulness," 
and  "The  Final  Separation  of  the  righteous 
and  the  wicked."  This  denial,  and  these 
affirmations,  if  sincerely  made,  oblige  us  to 
regard  Mr.  Swing  as  occupying  on  all  the 
points  of  the  Evangelical  and  Calvinistic 
faith  sulistantially  the  same  ground  as  the 
former  New  School  theologians,  whose  views 
of  Calvinistic  doctrine,  as  set  forth  in  the 
Auburn  Declaration,  and  in  their  writings, 
were  recognized  by  both  General  Assemblies 
at  the  time  of  the  lieunion  as  not  inconsistent 
with  the  integrity  of  the  Calvinistic  system, 
and  with  a  sincere  reception  and  adoption 
of  the  Confession  of  Faith  as  co7itaining  the 
s}istem  of  doctrine  taught  in  the  Holy  [Scrip- 
tures. We  by  no  means  contend  or  believe 
that  is  was  implied  iu  the  Keunion  that  the 
great  bodj-  of  the  Church  indorsed  what  was 
called  the  New  School  theology,  as  held  by 
such  men  as  Drs.  Kichards,  Beman,  Spear, 
and  Hickok  and  Albert  Barnes.  What  we 
say  is  that,  after  the  Auburn  Declaration  had 


280 


THE  TKIAL  OP  KEV.  DAVID  SWING. 


been  affirmed  by  the  Assembly  at  Albany  in 
1868  to  "contain  all  the  essentials  of  the  Cal- 
vinistic  creed,"  and  when  all  the  theologians 
of  the  New  School  Church,  whose  views  had 
been  long  before  the  world,  were  freely  re- 
ceived into  the  reunited  body,  and  the  Church 
in  which  they  had  been  not  only  tolerated 
but  honored — was  pronounced  "a  sound  and 
orthodox  body,"  it  was  clearly  understood 
that  the  doctrines  of  what  was  called  the 
New  School  theology  were  to  be  allowedin 
the  Keunited  Church  as  not  inconsistent  with 
a  sincere  acceptance  and  adoption  of  the 
Confession  of  Faith,  as  containing  the  system 
of  doctrine  taught  in  the  Holy  Scriptures. 
And  in  our  judgment  it  has  not  been  proved 
that  Mr.  Swing  has  departed  further  from 
the  letter  of  the  Confession  than  many  other 
New  School  theologians  who  were  recognized 
as  in  good  standing  at  the  time  of  the  lie- 
union.  It  is  conceded  on  both  sides  that  a 
subscription  to  the  letter  of  the  Confession 
on  all  points,  or  even  to  all  the  propositions 
in  the  Confession,  is  not  essential  to  good 
standing  in  the  Eeunited  Church.  The  doc- 
trine of  particular  and  general  atonement, 
and  the  different  views  that  are  held  among 
us  in  regard  to  the  lawfulness  of  marrying  a 
deceased  wife's  sister,  are  not  alike  consistent 
with  the  letter  or  propositions  of  the  Confes- 
sion ;  but  they  are  alike  allowed  in  the  Church 
as  not  destroying  the  integrity  of  the  system 
embraced  in  our  Confession,  and  so  of  many 
other  points  of  diti'erence  among  us.  But 
Mr.  Swing  has  not,  so  far  as  has  been  shown, 
discarded  any  teachings  of  the  Confession 
which  are  essential  to  the  integrity  of  the 
system  taught  in  the  symbols  of  our  Church. 
The  doctrines  which  he  avowedly  discards  in 
his  declaration  are  not  hold  by  any  school  in 
the  Church,  aud  he  only  implies  in  that  de- 
claration his  adoption  of  the  New  School  in 
preference  to  the  Old  School  theology. 

It  has  not,  in  our  judgment,  been  proved 
from  the  published  writings  of  Mr.  Swing 
that  he  discards  any  essential  doctrine  of  the 
Presbyterian  CJhurch.  The  principal  speci- 
fications bearing  directly  on  this  point  are 
the  ninth,  eighteenth,  nineteenth,  twentieth, 
twenty-first,  twenty-third,  and  twenty- 
fourth,  under  Charge  1,  and  the  four  speci- 
fications under  Charge  2. 

Specification  9  alleges  that  Mr.  Swing  has 
taught  or  given  his  sanction  to  Sabellianism. 
But  the  language  quoted  is  consistent  with  a 
belief  in  the  Church  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  ; 
and  this  doctrine  of  three  persons  in  one  God 
is  distinctly  recognized  in  "Truths  for  To- 
Day,"  page  81.  Besides,  it  has  been  proved 
by  parole  testimony  that  Mr.  Swing  does 
avow  his  belief  in  the  doctrine  of  throe  per- 
sons in  one  God. 

Specification  18  charges  that  Mr.  Swing 
denies  in  efi'ect,  the  judicial  condemnation 
of  the  lost.  But  of  this  we  have  seen  no 
proof.  The  statement  that  unbelief  "does 
not  destroy  the  soul  by  an  arbitrary  decree," 
may  be  fairly  understood  to  mean  that  God 
does  not  assign  damnation  to  the  unbeliever 
without   good   reasons,    which   reasons    are 


found  partly  in  the  very  nature  of  our  belief. 
There  is  no  denial,  expressed  or  implied,  of  a 
divine  judicial  sentence  upon  the  unbeliever. 
Specification  19  alleges  that  Mr.  Swing 
teaches  that  faith  saves  because  it  leads  to  a 
holy  life,  etc.,  but  he  does  not  deny  that  faith 
has  a  supernatural  origin,  when  he  affirms 
that  it  acts  naturally,  or  in  accordance  with 
the  nature  and  laws  of  the  human  mind. 
And  we  do  not  see  that  any  of  the  statements 
quoted  in  the  specification  contravene  any 
fundamental  doctrine  of  Scripture  or  the  Con- 
fession. He  does  not  discuss,  in  the  sermon 
quoted,  the  whole  subject  of  Faith,  but  simply 
considers  its  relation  to  a  holy  character. 

Specification  20th  accuses  Mr.  Swing  of 
teaching  that  men  are  saved  by  works.  But 
it  does  not  follow  that  he  denies  that  there  is 
another  sense  in  which  men  are  saved  by 
faith  in  the  Saviour's  atoning  sacrifice. 
Indeed,  he  expresslj'-  says  in  his  sermon  on 
Faith,  page  239,  that  "Pardon  and  atonement 
form  parts  of  the  great  salvation."  There  ia 
a  sense  in  which  men  are  saved  by  works,  as 
the  Apostle  James  explicitly  teaches. 

Specification  21st  alleges  that  Mr.  Swing 
denies  the  doctrine  of  Justification  by  Faith,, 
as  held  by  the  Reformed  Churches  and  taught 
in  our  Confession.  But  Mr.  Swing,  in  show- 
ing that  works — that  is,  a  new  life — is  the 
destiny  and  end  towards  which  Faith  oper- 
ates, does  not  deny  that  judicial  justification 
is  a  reality  in  the  Christian  system.  On  the 
contrary,  he  asserts,  as  we  have  seen,  that 
"pardon  and  atonement  are  part  of  the  great 
salvation."  Like  James,  in  speaking  of  good 
works,  he  treats  only  of  the  necessary  place 
which  a  new  life  holds  in  the  matter  of  sal- 
vation. 

Specifications  23rd  and  24th  allege  that 
Mr.  Swing  denies  the  plenary  inspiration  and 
the  infallibility  of  the  Bible.  But  it  appears 
from  Mr.  Swing's  letter  to  the  Presbyterian, 
and  from  his  explanations  before  this  body, 
as  well  as  from  private  statements  of  his 
views,  in  evidence  before  us,  that  he  believes 
in  the  plenary  inspiration  and  the  infallibil- 
ity of  the  Bible,  and  only  adopts  some  pecu- 
liar modes  of  intei-preting  and  applying  Old 
Testament  teachings  and  the  Book  of  Revela- 
tion, about  which  our  Confession  says  noth- 
ing. 

Specification  1st,  under  the  second  Charge, 
alleges  an  oftense  which  was  known,  when 
the  charges  were  brought  forward,  only  to  a 
few  persons, — a  private  offense, — and  which 
has  not  been  proved. 

Specification  2nd  has  not  been  established 
by  any  clear  evidence. 

Specification  3rd  under  that  head  failed, 
because  the  memory  of  Mr.  Shufeldt  was 
altogether  uncertain,  and  because  there  was 
at  best  but  one  witness  ;  and 

Specification  4th  failed  because,  even  if 
the  quotations  were  fairly  made,  they  only 
show  Mr.  Swing's  relative  estimate  of  the 
practical  importance  of  the  doctrines  referred 
to,  and  not  that  he  disbelieves  those  doc- 
trines. The  proofs  of  the  prosecutor  are  ail 
inferential  and  indirect,  and  even  his  infer- 


SEASONS  FOR  THE  DECISION. 


281 


ences  we  do  not  admit  arc  clearly  made  out. 
The  accused  is  entitled  to  the  benefit  of  the 
most  favorable  interpretation  which  his  lan- 
guage seems  to  admit  of.  Besides  all  this,  it 
appears  from  the  testimony  of  the  Elders  of 
the  Fourth  Church,  and  other  witnesses,  that 
Mr.  Swing  has  not  taught  the  doctrines 
charged  upon  him,  in  any  of  his  lectures,  but 
has  explicitly  taught  the  contrary,  and  that 
he  has  in  private  conversations  explicitly 
disavowed  his  belief  in  those  doctrines. 

It  should  be  added  that  the  evidence  from 
Prof.  Swing's  sermons  before  this  body  goes 
to  show  that  he  does  believe  the  doctrine  of 
Divine  Decrees,  and  nearly  all  of  the  other 
doctrines  which  he  is  charged  with  denying. 

For  all  these  reasons  we  have  judged  that 
the  second  Charge  is  not  sustained  by  any 
clear  and  satisfactory  proof.  And  for  the 
same  and  like  reasons  we  have  decided  that 
the  first  Charge  has  not  been  sustained. 

A  few  additional  reasons  may  be  stated 
for  our  judgment  regarding  the  first  Charge. 

Under  this  head  we  take  into  account  not 
only  the  position  of  Mr.  Swing  as  a  Presby- 
terian minister,  and  his  explicit  denial  of 
guilt,  and  his  affirmations  of  substantial 
agreement  with  New  School  Presbyterians, 
in  which  we  are  bound  to  assume  his  entire 
honesty  until  the  contrary  is  proved,  but  the 
peculiarity  of  his  aim  in  many  of  his  dis- 
courses, and  the  character  of  the  audiences 
which  he  had  before  him  in  many  of  his  dis- 
courses, and  the  character  of  the  audiences 
whom  he  has  chiefly  addressed  in  his  Sabbath 
services  since  the  Fire.  Mr.  Swing  deals 
largely  in  illustrations  and  the  use  of  meta- 
phorical language,  and  often  rapidly  groups 
together  many  particulars  which  are  only 
very  generally  related  together,  and  although 
not  a  mystic,  his  thought  and  style  are  often 
mystical,  and  therefore  more  or  less  obscure. 
It  should  be  remembered,  also,  that  he  avows 
his  sense  of  the  necessity  of  less  theological 
and  more  practical  preaching  ;  also,  that  his 
-  audiences  since  the  Fire  have  consisted  largely 
of  persons  who  were  not  convinced  of  the 
divine  authority  of  Scripture,  and  whom  he 
was  therefore  induced  to  address  frequently 
in  the  hope  of  gradually  preparing  them  to 
admit  its  Divine  authority.  This  accounts 
for  the  fact  that,  during  this  period,  he  has 
dwelt  less  upon  the  central  doctrines  of  the 
Gospel  in  his  discourses  on  the  Sabbath, 
reserving  his  more  explicit  instructions  for 
the  benefit  of  his  own  people  for  his  Wednes- 
day evening  lectures,  as  his  Elders  tell  us  he 
has  done.  With  these  facts  in  mind,  it  is 
not  difficult  to  understand  many  things  in 
his  sermons  which  might  otherwise  seem 
hardlj-  consistent  with  an  earnest,  evangeli- 
cal purpose. 

It  has  not  been  shown  that  he  has  inten- 
tionally used  vague  or  equivocal  language  in 
regard  to  important  doctrines,  or  that  he  has 
declined  to  explain  his  meaning,  when  mis- 
understood, in  such  a  way  as  to  prove  him 
ecclesiastically  unfaithful.  His  treatment  of 
Unitarians,  and  his  discourse  on  the  life  and 


character  of  John  Stuart  Mill,  we  attribute 
rather  to  his  kindly  and  charitable  habits  of 
mind  than  to  any  disposition  to  give  his 
s-anction  to  fundamental  error;  for  he  has 
olten  in  his  sermons  declared  that  a  religion 
which  makes  Christ  a  mere  man,  as  the  tlni- 
tarianism  of  our  day  almost  unifoi-mly  does, 
sti-ikes  the  sun  from  the  ci'iitre  of  the  system ; 
and  as  to  Mr.  Mill,  he  only  commended  his 
]ihilanthroj)y,  which  he  expressly  attributed 
to  the  Christian  influences  of  which  ho  was 
unable  to  divest  his  mind.  Mr.  Swing  does 
indeed  ridicule  the  manner  in  which  some  of 
the  more  difficult  doctrines  of  religion  have 
been  often  defended  and  propagated  by  per- 
secution and  force ;  and  he  once  speaks  of 
the  doctrines  of  "Predestination"  and  "Elec- 
tion" as  not  important  in  their  relation  to 
the  historical  features  of  an  age.  But  while 
he  deems  the  prominence  sometimes  given 
to  such  mysteries  unwarrantable,  it  has  not 
been  shown  that  he  treats  contemptuously 
the  doctrines  themselves. 

The  allegation  that  he  has  omitted  to  teach 
or  preach  several  fundamental  doctrines,  is 
not  sustained  in  any  such  sense  as  to  show 
that  he  has  been  intentionally  unfaithful; 
for  it  has  been  shown  that  he  has  frequently 
recognized  these  doctrines  in  his  preaching 
or  his  lectures,  excepting  those  which  are 
seldom  touched  upon  directly  in  most  of  our 
Christian  pulpits,  and  that  his  references  to 
these  doctrines,  interpreted  in  view  of  his 
evangelical  standpoint,  are  to  be  regarded  as 
carrying  with  them  an  evangelical  meaning. 

His  sermon  on  "Experience  as  a  test  of 
Scripturedoctrine"  in  contradistinction  to  the 
doctrines  of  the  Church  "as  formally  stated," 
though  liable  to  be  misunderstood,  has  not 
been  proved  to  teach  any  radical  error.  He 
has  expressly  disavowed  the  doctrine  of 
"evolution,"  both  in  his  sermons  and  before 
the  Presbytery.  The  allegation  that  he  has 
made  false  and  daTigerous  statements  re- 
garding the  standards  of  fiiith  and  practice 
is  not  established  by  the  passages  referred  to, 
although  the  language  used  is,  in  some  instan- 
ces, liable  to  be  misapprehended.  In  regard 
to  the  Being  and  attributes  of  God,  we  do 
not  find  any  language  of  Mr.  Swing  that  is 
clearly  of  false  and  dangerous  import,  al- 
though some  expressions  are  perhaps  not  suf- 
ficiently guarded  against  misconstructions. 
The  specification  in  regard  to  Baptism  does 
not  seem  to  be  sustained  by  any  sufficient 
evidence, and  the  allegation  respectingPenel- 
ope  and  Socrates  is  not  supported  by  unques- 
tionable proof.  For,  taking  the  language 
quoted  in  its  most  unfavorable  sense,  it  as- 
serts a  doctrine  which  is  held  by  some  con- 
fessedly sound  Presbyterians,  and  which  is 
not  regarded  by  them  as  contrary  to  our  Con- 
fession. Specifications  thirteentli,  fourteenth, 
and  fifteenth  have  not  been  established  in 
.such  a  manner  as  to  prove  unfaithfulness  in 
the  sense  of  an  ecclesiastical  oftense.  Indeed, 
they  seem  to  rest  on  a  misapprehension  of 
Mr.  Swing's  meaning.  Specification  six- 
teenth, to  say  the  most,  is  only  sujiported  by 


THE  TEIAL  OF  KEV.  DAVID  SWING. 


282 

an  appeal  to  language  carelessly  used,  such 
as  we  often  find  in  the  writings  of  good  and 
faithful  men.  Specification  seventeenth  has 
not  been  established  in  such  a  manner  as  to 
prove  any  ecclesiastical  otlense. 

It  thus  appears  that  none  of  the  specifica- 
tions have  been  so  sustained  as  to  make  out 
clearly  an  ecclesiastical  oifense.  The  legal 
principles  applicable  to  this  case  are  clear  : 

1.  No  man  can  be  justly  convicted  of 
heresy  by  unfavorable  interpretations  of  his 
language,  when  it  admits  of  a  more  favorable 
construction  than  the  prosecutor  has  put 
upon  it,  as  we  have  seen. 

2.  Every  man  is  entitled  to  the  benefit  of 
his  disclaimer  of  doctrines  attributed  to  him 
which  he  denies  that  he  holds ;  and  we  have 
seen  that  Mr.  Swing  does  deny  that  he  dis- 
cards any  doctrine  that  is  essential  to  the 
system  taught  in  the  Confession  as  held  by 
New  School  theologians,  and  heretofore  ac- 
knowledged as  allowable  by  the  authorities 
of  the  Church. 

3.  No  man  can  justly  be  convicted  of  error 
by  inferences  from  his  teachings,  which  in- 
ferences he  refuses  to  acknowledge,  however 
logically  the  conclusions  may  be  drawn.  And 
much  less  can  any  one  be  held  responsible 
for  inferences  which  do  not  follow  by  ne- 
cessary consequence  from  his  positions.  But 
Mr.  Swing  is  accused  by  the  prosecutor  on 
almost  every  point  on  the  ground  of  infer- 
ences which  do  not  seem  to  follow  unavoid- 
ably from  the  language  used. 

4.  It  is  a  maxim  in  ecclesiastical  law  that 
no  man  should  be  convicted  of  an  oflense  so 
lonjr  as  there  can  be  any  doubt  of  his  guilt. 


But  it  seems  to  us  that  there  is,  to  say  the 
very  least,  room  for  grave  doubt  in  regard 
to  the  guilt  of  the  accused  in  this  case.  For 
these  principles,  see  the  cases  of  Craighead 
and  Barnes  in  the  Digests. 

In  view  of  all  these  considerations,  some 
of  which  are  deemed  more  weighty  and 
some  less  weighty  by  different  members  of 
this  body  who  voted  with  the  majority,  we 
are  clearly  of  the  opinion  that  the  several 
specifications  have  not  been  sustained  in  the 
sense  of  the  pi-oseeution,  and  that  the  Charges 
have  not  been  sustaiyied. 

In  rendering  this  judgment,  we  by  no 
means  indorse  all  the  expressions  and  senti- 
ments of  Mr.  Swing,  or  assume  the  respon- 
sibility of  defending  his  peculiar  style  of 
preaching.  We  would  be  understood  as  sim- 
ply pronouncing  our  judgment  on  the  points 
involved  in  the"^indictment  according  to  the 
evidence  that  has  come  before  our  minds  in 
the  progress  of  this  distressing  trial.  All  of 
which  is  respectfully  submitted. 

[Signed.]  K.  W.  Patterson, 

A.  Savazey, 
E.  E.  Barbek. 

Tlie  report  was  adopted. 

Prof.  Patton  announced  that  the  reasons 
for  his  appeal  from  the  decision  of  the  Pres- 
bytery to  the  Synod  of  Illinois  North  would 
be  presented  to  the  Moderator  within  the 
time  specified  in  the  Form  of  Government. 

The  Presbytery  then  adjourned  with 
prayer. 


PUBLISHERS'  Addenda. 


The  following  documents-Letter  of  Prof.  Swing  to  the  Chicago  Presbytery  and  Reasons 
of  Prof.  Patton  for  appeal  to  the  Synod  of  Northern  Illinois-lhough  not  "^.Cstit  't  Z 
part  of  the  Record  of  the  trial,  will  be  of  interest  to  the  readers  ;  'and  are  adled  bTth^ 
Publishers  with  the  consent  of  the  Committee  of  Publication. 


letter  of  prof.  swing. 

Chicago,  May  25,  1874. 
To  the  Chicago  Presbytery  : 

Dear  Brethren  :  Anxious  that  my  troub- 
les in  Church  relations  and  doctrines  should 
come  all  at  once  and,  if  possible,  be  termin- 
ated, and  wishing  to  avoid  debate  with  many 
brethren  with  whom  I  knew  the  action 
would  find  little  approval,  I  availed  myself 
of  the  telegraph  to  announce  a  course  upon 
which  my  own  mind  had  most  fully  deter- 
mined. 

At  some  subsequent  meeting  of  your  body 
I  shall  request  a  letter  of  dismissal,  or  that 
you  will  erase  my  name  from  your  roll,  for 
I  know  not  which  request  will  be  in  har- 
mony with  your  laws  and  customs. 

To-day,  I  beg  permission  only  to  apologize, 
and  state  a  fragment  of  the  argument  which 
induced  me  to  break  the  old  ties.  All 
through  the  past  year  so  much  had  been  said 
in  the  Presbyterian  papers,  and  so  much  had 
been  attempted  in  Synods  and  Presbyteries, 
that  pointed  to  me  as  a  "departure"  from 
the  faith,  that  my  heart  had  gradually  felt 
less  and  less  at  home  in  the  old  household, 
and  thus  began  to  feel  that  to  withdraw  was 
a  step  akin  to  duty. 

I  have  always  looked  upon  church  rela- 
tions as  being  not  simply  those  of  theology, 
but  those  of  Christian  brotherhood;  and 
when,  by  degrees,  under  the  repeated  attacks 
by  a  new  enemy,  the  feeling  of  brotherhood 
has  been  rapidly  taken  away  from  my  heart, 
the  desire  has  daily  increased  to  terminate 
relations  which  not  only  conferred  no  hap- 
piness upon  me,  but  conferred  power  upon 
another  to  arraign  me,  from  time  to  time, 
on  some  dead  dogma,  or  over  the  middle  of 
a  sentence,  or  over  some  Sabellian  or  Mo- 
hammedan word. 
From   the  standpoint  from   which  I  am 


accustomed  to  view  all  reform,  it  also  seems 
that  my  withdrawal  is  demanded  now  in 
order  to  secure  to  the  Synod  and  to  the  As- 
sembly that  peace  which  alone  can  lead  to  a 
calm  review  and  restatement  of  doctrine.  If 
my  late  prosecutor  chooses  to  force  upon  this 
Synod  and  upon  the  Assembly  an  issue  of 
this  whole  matter,  and  shall  compel  those 
bodies  to  open  and  settle  at  once  questions 
which  should  receive  five  or  ten  years  of  the 
calmest  abstract  thought,  upon  him  must 
rest  the  whole  responsibility  of  the  painful 
results. 

It  can  easily  be  seen,  from  the  eagerness 
with  which  this  adjoining  Synod  reaches  out 
after  this  battle,  and  from  the  nervousness 
which  the  Assembly  has  already  betrayed 
over  the  recent  action  of  your  body,  that  it 
would  be  only  a  mania  for  war  to  the  knife 
that  could  induce  any  one  now  to  carry  to 
those  bodies  a  debate  so  radical,  so  sudden, 
and  so  clouded  by  personal  friendships  and 
animosities. 

The  noble  attitude  assumed  last  week  by 
your  body  is  lesson  enough  and  battle  enough 
for  some  time  to  come. 

What  the  Church  demands  now  is  peace, 
that  it  may  think  in  some  hours,  and  work 
for  its  Master  in  all  hours.  It  needs  peace 
as  to  theology,  action  as  to  Gospel  work,  and 
then,  in  days  of  subsequent  peace  and  sober- 
ness not  far  removed,  it  can  by  committees 
and  without  the  stormy  passions  that  gather 
around  an  "accuser"  and  an  "accused,"  sit 
down  to  refashion  its  statement  of  doctrine. 
My  brethren,  in  this  act  I  hope  I  do  not 
withdraw  from  your  Gospel  mission,  but  only 
from  a  strife  forced  upon  you  and  me  to  our 
deep  regret.  In  all  your  Christian  labors, 
if  there  be  any  moment  at  which  I  can  help 
you,  count  me  with  you  as  a  fellow-laborer  ; 
but,  when  any  "accuser"  looks  around  for  a 
subject  to  be  used  for  military  purposes,  will 


284 


THE  TKIAL  OF  EEV.  DAVID  SWIKG. 


you  not  join  with  me  in  blessing  God  that 
such  a  peculiar  passion  must  at  last  languish 
for  want  of  a  victim  ? 

Hoping  that  God  will  confer  His  blessings 
upon  your  path,  and  upon  mine  also,  I  re- 
main, as  ever,  your  brother, 

[Signed.]  David  Swing. 


THE  PKOSECUTOR'S  APPEAL  TO  STNOD. 

Chicago,  June  2,  1874. 
Rev.  Arthur  Mitchell,  Moderator  of  the  Pres- 
bytery of  Chicago. 

Keverend  and  Dear  Sir:  Allow  me  to 
inform  you  that  I  intend  to  appeal  to  the 
Synod  of  Illinois,  north,  at  its  session  in  Oc- 
tober next,  against  the  decision  of  the  Pres- 
bytery of  Chicago,  in  the  case  of  Kev.  David 
Swing. 

The  appeal  is  from  a  "definitive  sentence," 
and  on  the  following  grounds:  (1.)  "Ir- 
regularities in  the  proceedings."  (2.)  Hurry- 
ing to  a  decision  before  important  testimony 
was  taken.  (3.)  A  manifestation  of  prejudice 
in  the  case.  (4.)  Mistake.  (5.)  Injustice  in 
the  decision. 

Under  these  heads  I  shall  group  more  spe- 
cifically the  reasons  which  lead  me  to  carry 
up  the  case  to  a  higher  court. 

1.  Irregularities. — 1.  The  Presbytery  erred 
in  admitting  the  testimony  of  the  elders  of 
the  Fourth  Church,  when  it  appeared  that 
the  sermons  of  Mr.  Swing,  respecting  which 
they  gave  their  opinion,  were  in  possession 
of  the  accused.  These  sermons,  though  called 
for,  were  withheld. 

2.  The  Presbytery  erred  in  allowing  the 
moderator  to  vote  on  the  charges  and  speci- 
fications and  to  express  his  views  of  the  case 
in  a  written  opinion. 

3.  The  Presbytery  erred  in  allowing  the 
elder  representing  the  Ninth  Church  to  vote 
on  the  charges  and  specifications  ;  inasmuch 
as  the  session  of  that  Church  sustains  Kev. 
Dr.  McKaig  in  his  position  as  pastor  elect 
notwithstanding  the  heretical  opinions  which 
Dr.  McKaig  has  publicly  expressed  on  the 
subject  of  inspiration. 

4.  The  Presbytery  erred  in  allowing  the 
elder  representing  the  Fourth  Church  to 
vote  on  the  charges  and  specifications,  inas- 
much as  he  was  an  interested  party. 

II.  Hurrying  to  a  Decision. — The  prosecu- 
tor expected  to  prove  specification  1,  of 
charge  second,  by  a  letter  written  by  Mr. 
Swing  to  Rev.  E.  Laird  Collier,  and  by  the 


testimony  of  Mr.  Collier.  The  prosecutor  | 
asked  for  a  continuance,  and  accompanied  the  1 
request  with  the  presentation  or  affidavits 
which  showed  the  importance  of  the  testi- 
mony and  the  necessity  of  a  postponement 
in  order  to  obtain  it.  The  request  was  not 
granted. 

///.  Prejudice. — There  was  a  manifestation    ^J 
of  prejudice  in  the  case  throughout  the  trial.        \ 
It  will  suffice  to  call  attention  to  the  follow- 
ing facts  : 

1.  A  member  of  the  court,  who  voted 
with  the  majority,  stated  on  the  floor  of  the 
Presbytery  that  he  was  ready  to  "show  his 
colors,"  and  that  he  belonged  to  the  "win- 
ning side."  This  was  before  the  evidence 
was  heard. 

2.  In  several  instances  members,  in  giv- 
ing their  "opinions,"  indulged  in  unkind 
personalities,  which  were  calculated  to  excite 
odium  against  the  prosecutor. 

3.  Eemarks  were  made  by  more  than  one 
member  of  the  court,  favoring  a  lax  sub- 
scription to  the  Confession  of  Faith. 

4.  It  was  affirmed  by  the  defense  and  re- 
affirmed by  leading  members  of  the  Presby- 
tery, who  voted  with  the  majority,  that  the 
issue  before  the  Presbytery  was  one  of  Old 
and  New  School  Presbyterianism.  This  had 
great  weight  with  the  Presbytery,  and  was 
calculated  not  only  to  enlist  the  sympathies 
of  those  who  belonged  to  the  late  New 
School  branch  of  the  church,  but  also  to 
excite  odium  against  the  persecutor  as  one 
who  had  taken  the  responsibility  upon  him- 
self of  reviving  old  controversies. 

IV.  Mistake. — 1.  It  was  a  mistake  to  re- 
gard the  pica  of  "not  guilty"  as  any  reason 
for  the  acquittal  of  the  accused.  The  plea 
was  pro  fo7'ma,  and  without  it  no  issue  would 
have  been  joined  and  there  would  have  been 
no  case  to  try. 

2.  It  was  a  mistake  to  consider  the  declar- 
ation of  the  accused  that  he  was  "a  New 
School  Presbyterian"  as  a  reason  for  his 
acquittal.  This  declaration  was  not  equiva- 
lent to  an  avowal  of  his  acceptance  of  the 
Confession  of  Faith  as  containing  the  system 
of  doctrine  taught  in  the  word  of  God. 
His  declaration  does  not  set  forth  what  he 
understands  New  School  Presbyterianism 
to  be. 

3.  It  was  a  mistake  to  regard  his  declara- 
tion that  he  held  in  the  evangelical  sense 
the  inspiration  of  the  scriptures,  the  trinity, 
the  divinity  of  Christ,  the  office  of  Christ  as 


PUBLISHERS'  ADDENDA. 


285 


a  mediator  when  grasped  by  an  obedient 
faith,  conversion  by  God's  spirit,  man's  nat- 
ural sinfulness,  and  the  final  separation  of 
the  righteous  and  wicked,  as  a  reason  for 
his  acquittal.  Because  (a)  the  word,  "evan- 
gelical" is  indefinite.  It  is  used  by  some, 
and  there  is  good  reason  for  sujjposing  that 
it  is  used  by  Professor  Swing  with  very 
great  latitude.  (b)  The  doctrines  named 
are  vaguely  stated  and  do  not  necessarily 
imply  that  the  accused  holds  them  as  they 
are  formulated  in  the  "Westminster  symbols, 
(c)  The  published  writings  of  Mr.  Swing 
may  be  fojriy  regarded  as  interpreting  his 
creed,  and  he  has  made  statements  in  them 
which  are  at  variance  with  fundamental 
doctrines  of  the  Confession  of  Faith. 

4.  It  was  a  mistake  to  regard  the  articles 
of  faith,  set  forth  in  the  declaration  of  the 
accused  as  a  reason  for  his  acquittal.  Be- 
cause, even  though  the  doctrines  embodied 
in  it  were  shown  to  be  held  by  the  accused 
in  the  sense  in  which  they  are  taught  in  our 
standards,  it  omits  some  important  doctrines 
held  by  our  church,  and  the  declaration  of 
the  accused  elsewhere  intimates  that  some 
of  these  doctrines  the  accused  no  longer 
held. 

5.  It  was  a  mistake  to  affirm  that  in  a  trial 
for  heresy  the  evidence  must  be  suflicient 
to  remove  all  possible  doubt.  This  propo- 
sition was  laid  down  as  an  unquestionable 
legal  principle,  and  as  such  is  embodied  in 
the  "reasons"  of  the  Presbytery  for  its 
decision.  The  principle  affirmed  by  the 
Presbytery  is  not  only  without  authority, 
but  the  precedents  cited  in  support  of  it 
teach  the  contrary  doctrine  (see  cases  of 
Craighead  and  Barnes,  in  Old  School  and 
New  School  Digests).  The  effect  of  this 
principle  would  be  to  make  the  condemna- 
tion of  heresy  impossible  and  to  render  hope- 
less every  effiart  of  the  church  to  protect  her- 
self against  false  teachers. 

6.  In  the  record  of  reasons  for  the  deci- 
sion of  the  Presbytery  it  is  assumed  in  the 
first  place,  that  the  accused  accepts  and 
adopts  the  Auburn  declaration,  and  it  is  ar- 
gued, in  the  second  place,  that  all  who  hold 
the  views  of  Calvinistic  doctrine  as  set  forth 
in  this  declaration  are  entitled  to  good 
standing  in  the  ministry  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church.  The  first  proposition  can  be  proved 
to  be  true,  and  the  second  has  not  been  called 
into  question.  This  is  enough  to  show  that 
the  accused  was  really  acquitted  by  the  Pres- 


bytery  on   an   issue,    which    had  not   been 
joined  before  it. 

7.  Presbytery  took  the  ground  that  they 
were  compelled  to  acquit  tlio  accused  or  im- 
peach his  integrity.  This  was  a  mistake. 
There  were  but  two  questions  before  the 
court:  First,  "Are  the  facts  proved  ?"  and 
second,  "Do  they  sustain  the  charges  ?  " 

8.  The  court  was  in  error  in  acquittin"- 
Prof.  Swing  on  the  ground  that  the  prose- 
cutor had  failed  to  prove  that  the  accused 
had  intentionally  omitted  to  teach  certain 
doctrines,  and  had  intentionally  used  equiv- 
ocal language. 

It  was  not  incumbent  on  the  prosecutor 
to  prove  the  express  intention  of  the  ac- 
cused, inasmuch  as  a  man  is  conclusively 
presumed  to  intend  the  natural  and  probable 
consequences  of  his  acts.  It  was  so  held  in 
the  case  of  Ditcher  vs.  Denison,  in  a  judg- 
ment of  Dr.  Lushington. 

Rejecting  that  construction  of  the  word 
"advisedly"  which  would  involve  the  ne- 
cessity of  proving  in  each  case  an  avowed 
purpose  of  infringing  the  law,  he  (Dr. 
Lushington)  thus  laid  down  the  principle 
to  be  applied  by  the  court :  "  If  a  sermon  or 
tract  be  compared  with  the  articles  and 
found  to  be  clearly  repugnant  to  them,  the 
intention  to  contravene  must  be  inferred,  for 
in  all  the  transactions  of  life  a  man  must  be 
judged  by  the  evident  consequence  of  his 
acts,  and  be  taken  to  intend  the  effect  of 
what  he  has  deliberately  done."  (Ecclesiast- 
ical judgment  of  the  privy  council,  p.  162.) 

8.  A  separate  vote  of  the  Presbytery 
should  have  been  taken  on  each  specification 
and  then  on  every  charge. 

10.  The  Presbytery  erred  in  passing  a  res- 
olution to  the  effect  that  the  vote  on  the 
specifications  should  be  in  their  moral  sense 
as  implying  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  ac- 
cused. Whether  the  specifications  were  true 
and  whether  they  sustained  the  charges  were 
separate  questions,  and  should  have  been 
separately  considered.  Many  would  have 
voted  for  some  of  the  specifications,  who, 
nevertheless,  would  not  vote  to  sustain  any 
of  the  specifications,  or  to  sustain  one  or 
both  of  the  charges.  This  appears  in  the 
opinion  of  several  members  of  the  court,  and 
it  is  further  evident  from  the  fact  that  sev- 
eral members  of  the  court  prefaced  their 
vote  by  saying:  "In  the  sense  implied  in 
the  resolution  we  vote  '  no '  on  all  of  the 
specifications."    For  this  reason  the  verdict 


286 


THE  TKIAL  OF  REV.  DAVID  SWING. 


of  the  court  does  not  plainly  represent  the 
judgment  of  the  Presbytery  respecting  the 
specifications. 

11.  If  it  were  conceded  that  the  language 
of  Professor  Swing,  which  is  alleged  to  con- 
travene the  doctrines  of  our  standards,  is 
without  violence  capable  of  a  favorable  con- 
struction, yet  the  Presbytery  erred  in  acquit- 
ting Professor  Swing,  because  he  failed  to 
disavow  the  specific  errors  alleged  against 
him,  and  to  avow  the  doctrines  which  it  was 
alleged  he  had  impugned.  The  import  of 
the  Craighead  case  was  defined  by  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  of  1836  to  be  "that  when 
language  claimed  to  be  heretical  admits 
without  violence  of  an  orthodox  exposition, 
and  the  accused  disclaims  the  alleged  error, 
and  claims  as  his  meaning  the  orthodox  in- 
terpretation, he  is  entitled  to  it,  and  it  is  to 
be  regarded  as  the  true  intent  and  import  of 
his  words." 

12.  It  was  a  mistake  to  account  for  the 
style  of  Mr.  Swing's  preaching  on  the  ground 
that  he  addressed  a  peculiar  audience.  Con- 
ceding that  this  is  a  correct  way  of  account- 
ing for  the  characteristics  of  Mr.  Swing's 
preaching,  it  would  not  be  a  good  excuse  for 
omitting  to  preach  the  cardinal  doctrines  of 
the  gospel,  or  for  teaching  error  or  for  speak- 
ing disparagingly  of  the  cardinal  doctrines 


of  our  church.  But  it  is  at  least  as  probable 
that  the  peculiar  audience  is  due  to  the  pecu- 
liar style  of  preaching  as  that  the  peculiar 
style  of  preaching  is  due  to  the  peculiar  au- 
dience. Of  the  peculiar  character  of  the 
audience,  it  is  to  be  furthermore  remem- 
bered, there  was  no  proof. 

V.  Injustice. — 1.  Conceding  even  that  the 
specifications  do  not  sustain  in  charges  under 
which  they  are  placed,  it  is  a  matter  of  deep 
regret  that  our  Presbytery  could  have  had 
its  attention  called  to  the  utterances  of  Mr. 
Swing,  without  putting  on  record  a  single 
word  of  censure,  admonition,  or  disapproval. 
Is  it  too  much  to  say  that  in  its  vote  of 
acquittal  it  has  to  all  intents  and  purposes 
indorsed  the  preaching  of  Professor  Swing, 
given  its  sanction  to  latitudinarianism,  and 
done  injury  to  the  cause  which  it  is  pledged 
to  maintain  ? 

2.  The  case  was  clearly  proved.  The  ver- 
dict of  the  Presbytery  was  therefore  an  un- 
righteous decision. 

These  are  my  reasons  for  appealing  from 
a  decision  in  which  so  large  a  majority  of 
my  co-presbyters  concur. 

"With  respect  for  the  reverend  judicatory 
over  which  you  preside,  and  high  regard 
for  yourself,  I  am  very  sincerely  yours, 

[Signed.]         Feancis  L.  Patton. 


THE  END. 


A    NEW    AND    REVISED  'EDITION    OF 

REV.  DR.  HATFIELD'S 

HIOHLY    POPULAR    ANB    WIDELY    PATRONIZED 

Church  Hymn-Book, 

T7\7'ITI3C    TXJ3MDESS, 

Just  issued  from   the  well-known  University/  Press  of  Cambridge,  Mass., 
in  the  highest  style  of  art. 

A  new  set  of  plates  having  become  desirable  by  reason  of  the  worn  state  of  the  first 
.set,  occasion  has  been  taken  to  subject  the  work  to  a  thorough  and  most  careful  revision. 
The  utmost  acairacy  has  been  sought  in  the  printing  of  both  the  Hymns  and  the  Tunes, 
so  as  to  make  them,  in  this  respect,  and  in  uniformity  of  punctuation,  as  perfect  as 
possible.  No  change  has  been  made  in  either  Hymns  or  Tunes,  except  that,  in  the  case  of 
some  of  the  old  and  familim'  tunes,  the  harmonies  have  been  modified  in  accordance  with 
popular  taste,  and  the  quarter  note  has  been  substituted  for  the  half  note.  The  new 
edition  can  be  used  with  the  old,  if  desired. 

The  attention  of  the  Churches  is  called  to  the  pamphlet  of  "SPECIMEN  PAGES," 
just  issued.  The  style  of  the  type,  both  of  the  letter-press  and  of  the  music,  it  is  confi- 
dently afiirmed,  is  superior  to  that  of  any  other  similar  book,  now  in  circulation,  or  in  the 
process  of  publication,  for  the  beauty  of  its  finish,  and  for  its  clearness  and  distinctness. 
Nothing  like  it,  in  these  respects,  is  to  be  found  in  the  country. 

As  to  the  general  merits  of  the  work  public  opinion  has  pronounced  a  most  favorable 
verdict.  Testimonials  the  most  flattering  have  been  so  freely  and  so  abundantly  given  of 
its  superior  merits,  by  the  very  best  critics,  as  well  as  by  hundreds  of  Churches  that  have 
tested  its  great  excellency,  as  to  supersede  the  necessity  of  any  further  commendations. 
The  Publishers  submit  it  as  every  way  a  model-book. 

THE  CHURCH  HYMN-BOOK,  WITH  TUNES,  contains  1,469  Hymns,  more 
than  400  Tunes;  32  Doxologies,  2.5  Chants,  and  yet  is  less  in  price  than  any  other  com- 
peting volume. 

A  sample  copy,  for  examination,  will  be  sent,  post-paid,  to  any  clergyman  wishing  to 
examine  the  same  with  a  view  to  introduction,  with  privilege  of  returning  it  if  not 
adopted. 

Churches  adopting  it  will  receive  a  pulpit  copy,  in  extra  binding,  free  of  charge. 

An  edition  is  issued  of  the  Hymns  without  the  Music. 

THE  PSALTER,  or  BOOK  OF  PSALMS,  arranged  for  responsive  readings,  is  also 
bound  with  the  book,  or  furnished  in  sejiarate  binding,  as  may  be  desired,  at  slight  addi- 
tional cost.  The  Presbyterian  Directory  for  Public  Worship  is  supplied  in  like  manner 
when  wanted. 

Churches  contemplating  the  adoption  of  a  new  Hynin-Book  will  do  well  carefully  to 
examine  "THE  CHURCH  HYMN-BOOK,"  and  conijiare  it  with  any  other. 

Price,  $2.00.     Special  Terms  for  Introduction. 


Ivi^oi],  Sl^veirikii,  ^kvlof  &  Co. 


133  and  135  State  Street,  Chicago.  138  and  140  Grand  Street,  Hew  Tork. 


Recent   Religious   Books 


PUBLISHED     BY 


Harper  &  Brothers, 


nsTE^w    Y  o  i^  ic 


McCLINTOCK  &  STRONG'S  Cyclopaedia 
of  Biblical,  Theological  and  Ecclesiastical 
Literature.  Pive  volumes  now  ready,  from 
A^oMc.  8vo,  Cloth,  $5.00;  Sheep,  16.00  ; 
Half  Morocco,  $7.50.  {Sold  by  Subscrip- 
tion.) 

THE  EVANGELICALALLIANCE,1873. 

History,  Essays,  Orations,  &c.    8vo,  Cloth, 
16.00.     {Sold  by  Subscription.) 


DR.  TYNG'S  Office  and  Duty  of  a  Christian 
Pastor.     12mo,  Cloth,  |1.25. 


WINCHELL'S  Doctrine  of  Evolution.     12 

mo,  Cloth,  11.00. 


CHRISTLIEB   on  Modern  Infidelity.     12 
mo,  Cloth,  75  cents. 


PLUMER'S    Pastoral     Theology.       12mo, 
Cloth,  12.00. 


DAWSON'S  Earth  and  Man.   Illustrations. 
12mo,  Cloth,  fl.50. 


HERVEY'S  Christian  Rhetoric.  8vo,  Cloth, 

$3.50. 


TRISTRAM'S  Land  of  Moab.     Illustrated. 
Crown  8vo,  Cloth,  $2.50. 


TYERMAN'S  Life  of  Wesley.     Portraits. 
3  vols.,  Crown  8vo,  Cloth,  $7.50. 


TYERMAN'S    Oxford    Methodists.      Por- 
traits.    Crown  8vo,  Cloth,  $2.50. 


COOKMAN'S    LIFE.       Porti-ait.      12mo, 
Cloth,  $2.00. 


TALM AGE'S    Sermon's.      3    vols.,    12mu, 
Cloth,  $2.00  each. 


PALMER'S  Desert  of  the  Exodus.  Illus- 
trations and  Maps.  Crown  8vo,  Cloth, 
$3.00. 


PAINE 'S  Soul  and  Instinct  as  Distinguished 
from  Materialism.     8vo,  Cloth,  $5.00. 


BARNES'S  NOTES :  New  Edition. 

Now  ready:  Gospels,  2  vols.;  Acts,  1  vol.; 
Romans,  1  vol.;  I.  Corinthians,  1  vol.;  II. 
Corinthians  and  Galatians,  1  vol.;  Ephe- 
sians,  Philippians  and  Colossians,  1  vol.; 
Thessalonians,  Timothy,  Titus  and  Phile- 
mon, 1  vol.;  Hebrews,  1  vol. 


SMILES'S     Historv    of     the     Huguenots. 
Crown  8vo,  Cloth^  $2.00. 


SMILES'S  Huguenots  in  France  after  the 
Revocation.     Crown  8vo,  Cloth,  $2.00. 


REVISION  of  the  English  Version  of  the 
New  Testament.  By  Ellicott,  Trench, 
LiGHTFOOT  &  ScHAFF.  Crown  8vo,  Cloth, 
$3.00. 


MACGREGOR'S  Rob  Roy  on  the  Jordan. 
Illustrated.     Crown  8vo,  Cloth,  $2.50. 


[arper  «&  Brothers  loill  send  either  of  the  above  loorks  by  mail,  j)osiage  prepaid, 
to  any  part  of  the  United  States,  on  receipt  of  the  price. 


[arper's  New  Catalogue  with  Analytic  Index,  mailed  free  on  receip)i  of 
Ten  Cents  in  -postage  stamps. 


m-TBUTHS  FOB  TO-DAY  is  referred  to  and  quoted  from  in  the 
preceding  j>ag€s  over  seventy-five  times. 


TRUTHS  FOR  TO-DAY, 

SPOKEN  IN  THE   PAST  WINTER, 

By  David  Swi  ng, 

Pastor  Fourth  Presbyterian  Church,  Chicago. 

The  only  authorised  volume  of  I'rof.  SwhigH   Sermons,  edited   by   himself,  and    con- 

taining    those    sermons    which    he    thought    worthy    of 

preservation   in   permanent  form. 

A  Beautiful  12mo.  Volume.    Tinted  Paper.    Price,  $1.50. 
FOURTH  THOUSAND    NOW  BEADY. 

Mailed  free  on  receipt  of  price. 


We  also  offer  the  choicest  and  largest  collection  in  the  West  of  the 
Masterpieces  of  Literature,— "The  Good  Books  of  To  Day,  and  the 
Good  Ones  of  all  Time,"  in  all  varieties  of  editions  and  bindings,  from 
the  most  modest  and  inexpensive  to  the  finest  productions  of  the^Englisli 
presses  and  binderies. 

OUB    SPECIALTIES   ABE: 

I.     Every  School  and  College  Text  Book  used  in  the  West. 
11.     The  best  books  and  best  editions  for  public  and  private  libraries. 
III.     Splendid  art  works  for  the  drawing  room,  or  for  wedding  and 
anniversary  presents. 

lY.     Rare  and  curious  editions  of  old  and  scarce  works. 
V.     The  direct  importation  of  fine  and  unusual  foreign  books. 
YI.     The  Choicest  English,  French  and  American  Papers,  Envelopes 
and  Stationery,  for  Ladies  and  Gentlemen. 


Teachers,  Professors,  School  Oflicers,  Clerg-ymen 
and  Literary  IMen, 

Will  be  cordially  welcomed  to  our  new  and  beautiful  store,  and  are  invited 
to  make  it  their  resort  while  in  Chicago. 

JANSEN,  MCCLURG  &  CO. 

Importers,  Booksellers  and  Stationers, 

117  &  119  STATE  STREET,  CHICAGO. 


i 


pate  Due 

'        • 

•^Si-.iaJJ— — ^ 



